UC-NRLF 


li  iiiiti  liii 

i  III  1  III  i 

1  li  III  1 

$C    3S    fiMS 

%,./ 


\*-  START 

Microfilmed  by 

Department  of  Photoduplication 

The  University  of  Chicago  Library 

Swift  Hall 
Chicago  37,  Illinois 

©B  QDD©^aT?D®C]  [?ra©Gao  "y^Wd 

caaTfBBn/A\[i  \S\[j\y/  □©•d'  bq  c3/a\idq 

CZJD'ir[]G.©D!Ji7  [?Q[X]C2D88[]©C]  [?[D©[a 
*ir[X]Q  /A\DD'i?S]©ra  /a\C]©  ©Q[P/A\BT?K]Bra7 

Thesis  No.  /2Z9/ 

•Fr^piYiTUnT''|'''l'^| 


^. 


''V 


t 


: 


& 


Xlbe  lUntvecsitc  of  Gbicago 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  JO  THE 
GRECIAN  WORLD  IN  THE  A^CRY- 
PHAL  AND  PSEUDEPlGRAffiiCAL 
LITERATURE 


Thy  sons,  O  Zion, 
against  thy  sons,  O  Greece. — Zech.  9:13 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  DIVXNITY  SCHOOI. 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

doctor  of  philosophy 
(devastuent  of  old  testament  literatuke  and  imtespsetation) 


BY 

, 

ISAAC  GEORGE  MATTHEWS  . 

.    >       •     .  ■  • 

1 

CHICAGO 
1914 

• 

• 

.. 

(J^:^3^^/«5-' 


tOAN  STAC5 


!  - 


CoBBpoMd  iBd  rriKtod  Br 

The  Unlna^ty  of  CbitMgo  Prca 

Chiapi,  'lliaols.  V^A. 


WUM 

I 


CONTENTS 

Intkodcction 

Environment,  Fonnative  in  Hebrew  Life 

Canaan,  Phoenicia,  Assyria,  Babylonia,  and  Persia  Each  Made  a 
Contribution.  Greek  Thought  and  Life,  Subtly  Pervasive  in  All 
Phases  of  Activity. 

I.    The  Indhect  Apologetic  Seen  in  the  Jewish  Adaptation  to  thi 

GkEEK  ENVnONMENT 

The  Adoption  of  the  Greek  Language  Had  Very  Important  Issuo.     .  4 

LXX.    Translated,  Widespread  Literary  Activity. 
Philosophic  Terminology — Ethical,  Cosmological,  Theological,  Vtf- 
chological.  Ecclesiastical — Introduced. 

General  Literary  Tendencies — Literary  Forms,  Pseudjpigraphy,  Inter- 
polations, Forged  Letters,  Exuberant  Apocalyptic — Developed. 
Allegory  as  a  Method  of  Interpretation  Was  Perfected. 

The  Contact  with  the  Social  Life  and  Customs  of  the  Greeks  Changed  the 

Outlook  and  Colored  the  Ideals  of  the  Hebrews ij 

The  Stadium,  Hippodrome,  Gymnasia,  Theater,  Agora,  Architecture, 
Govenmient,  and  Religion,  All  Left  Their  Influence  on  the  Subject 
People. 

II.    The  Jewish  Answer  to  the  VAWotre  Attacks 

The  Attacks  on  the  Nation 19 

Lacking  in  Antiquity;   a  Leprous  and  Slave  Race;   Barbarous  and 

Uncultured;  Fellow-Haters  and  Bad  Citizens. 
The  Attacks  on  Their  Religion 35 

The  Ritual;   Circumcision;   Sabbath;  Idolatry;   Human  Sacrifice; 

Atheism. 

lU.    A  Review  of  the  Litekatusx 
The  Hebrew  Thought  Restated  in  Terms  of  Grecian  Philosophy   ...     38 

A.     COSHOUXSY 
The  Greek  Cosmogonies  Were  a  Growth.        s8 

The  Hebrews  Though  Not  Interested  in  Cosmogony  per  se,  Took 

Over  the  General  Semitic  Ideas. 
Development  in  the  Interbiblical  Period 30 

Conception  More  Orderly;    Greek  Words  Appropriated;   Ideas  of 

Harmony;  Creation  out  of  Passive  Matter;    Medium  of  Creation, 

and  Archetypal  Ideas. 

a  • 


957 


iv 


PSYCHOLOCy 


The  Greek  Idea  Contrasted  wUh  the  Hebrew 34 

Greek  Influence  Seen  in  Dichotomy  and  Trichotomy;  Pre-Ezistence; 
Immortality;  Freedom  of  the  Will,  and  Conscience. 

C.     ETHICS 

The  Messages  of  the  Prophets  Still  Have  Their  Exponents,  but  the  Greek 

Cultural  Movements  Are  Infectious 46 

The  Love  of  Beauty;  the  Attitude  toward  Woman;  Desire  for  Name 
and  Fame;  the  Cardinal  Virtues  of  the  Platonists;  the  Attitude 
toward  Truth,  and  the  Idea  of  the  Sacredness  of  Life  Show  the 
Influence  of  the  Greeks. 

D.     THEOLOGY 

Greek  Speculation,  the  Result  of  Centuries  of  Development     ....     56 
To  the  Hebrews  the  Existence  of  God  Was  Axiomatic 

Readjustment  Is  Made  to  the  Philosophic  Outlook  of  the  Greeks       .     .     57 
Transcendency  Emphasized,  Names  and  Characteristics  of  Deity. 
No  Place  for  Idolatry. 
Providence. 

System  of  Intermediaries,  Angelology,  Logos. 

Revelation  Idea.  The  Literature  Is  Accredited  by  Evidence  of  Inspira- 
tion of  the  Media  of  Revelation,  Appeal  to  the  Content. 


INTRODUCTION 

Environment  is  one  of  the  potent  channels  of  influence  in  the  life 
of  any  people.  Most  potent  is  that  of  the  life  and  thought  of  a  domi- 
nant nation.  The  Hebrews  were  always  susceptible  to  outside  influ- 
ences. In  their  early  history  they  readily  adapted  themselves  to  their 
surroundings.  While  throughout  they  maintained  their  identity  and 
carried  forward  the  noblest  of  their  early  religious  convictions,  they 
always  took  on  the  color  of  their  immediate  situation.  To  them  the 
crucible  of  international  struggle  was  the  meiting-pot  in  which  their 
religious  ideals  were  purified. 

Many  of  their  early  leaders  strenuously  opposed  any  assimilation 
of  Canaanitish  life  or  thought.  Later  they  became  not  only  agricul- 
turists, but,  along  with  that,  the  functions  of  the  Baal  of  the  land  were 
appropriated  to  Yahweh  (Hos.  2:8).  As  the  austerity  of  the  desert 
life  gave  way  before  the  softening  influence  of  an  advancing  civilization, 
the  conception  of  deity  likewise  became  more  cultural.  Through  con- 
tact with  Phoenicia,  a  commercial,  seacoast  people,  Israel  gained  her 
first  glimpse  of  a  larger  world  life,  and  thus  laid  the  foimdation  for  her 
later  world-outlook. 

Contact  with  Assyria  widened  still  further  the  horizon  of  their 
leaders.  The  choice  spirits  who  were  carried  to  Babylon  from  Judah 
in  597  maintained  their  integrity.  But  Babylon  was  a  school  in  which 
they  learned  much.  Ritual  was  systematized  and  intensified.  General 
customs  were  adopted.  History  was  reinterpreted.  The  Babylonian 
calendar  was  accepted.  Literary  form  was  influenced  and  word» 
received  new  content.  Cosmological  ideas  were  reordered.  Laws  and 
religious  feasts,  which  earlier  had  been  related  to  natural  events,  as 
seasois,  etc.,  are  now  made  statutory  and  commemorative  of  super- 
natural religion.  The  conception  of  God  was  liberalized.  Great  spirit- 
ual conceptions  were  deepened  and  broadened.  The  ideas  of  a  great 
religious  commonwealth  and  a  great  world-missionary  obligation  were 
bom.  New  conceptions  and  new  forms  of  activity  were  produced  tmder 
the  demand  of  these  new  conditions.  An  intense  loyalty  to  the  God 
of  their  fathers  was  now  poured  into  a  mold,  which  was  the  result  of 
their  Babylonian  experience. 

Persian  influence  likewise  was  not  a  dead  letter.  Eschatological 
ideas  seem  at  least  to  have  gathered  some  color  from  Persian  thought 


m^mrwtmmi^iii'i'r'immnmtrmfmmifmii^i^^m'im 


•^ba^MMttt^AUMtiiailiiWii 


iittmt^tiitimauii^iMimimiMmattmiiliud^ 


DITRODUCnOH  .5 

subject  people,  on  the  whole  their  overlords  bestowed  favors  and  privi- 
leges on  them,  which  more  than  reconciled  many  to  the  rule  of  the 
conqueror. 

Thus  gradually,  from  the  third  century  on,  the  Greeks  commanded 
more  and  more  completely  the  life-interests  of  all  those  nations  which 
they  had  vanquished  by  arras.  In  the  second  century  the  sway  of 
Hellenic  culture  was  all  but  complete  throughout  their  vast  domains. 
The  most  stubborn,  and  the  last  of  all  to  yield,  were  the  Jews.  Their 
last  stand  was  made  in  the  realm  of  religion.  By  many  the  Greek 
inroads  were  long  held  at  bay.  Certain  influences  were  never  permitted 
to  affect  Jewish  thought.  Yet  the  inevitable  happened.  Slowly,  even 
unconsciously,  the  encroachment  of  the  enemy  is  seen,  and  more  or  less 
completely  the  culture  of  the  conquerors,  even  in  things  religious,  won 
its  sway  over  the  minds  of  the  people.  Much  of  this  came  as  a  matter 
of  course.  The  influence  of  the  Greek  was  subtly  pervasive.  They 
were  a  people  even  more  noted  for  their  philosophies  than  for  their 
conquests.  No  wall  could  be  built  to  withstand  effectively  this  thought- 
atmosphere.  The  Diaspora,  which  extended  from  inner  Asia  to  Gibral- 
tar, was  not  the  least  important  element  in  the  readjustment  of  the 
Jewish  life  and  thought  to  that  of  the  Greek  ideal  (Bousset,  Relig.  d. 
Jud.,  69-83;   Siegfried,  Philos.,  2-5;   Matter,  Bisf.  de  I'tcoie  d'AUx., 

1-3). 

In  the  following  chapter  there  will  be  discussed  the  chief  features 
which  the  Jewish  people,  in  part  consciously  and  in  part  unconsciously, 
adopted  from  their  Greek  neighbors,  and  which  paved  the  way  for  the 
later  and  more  conspicuous  apologetic 


^^^•^H^m^^^m^ 


a  THE  JEWISH  APOLOCEnC  TO  THE  GSECIAN  WORLD 

and  symbolism.  The  symbolism  of  the  beasts,  this  present  evil  world 
as  over  against  the  world  to  come  (Isa.,  chaps.  24-27;  Zech.,  chaps. 
« 12-14,  etc.),  the  seven  heavens  (Slav.  En.,  chaps.  3-21;  T.  Levi 
2:7 — 3:3;  IV  Esdr.  8:81  f.),  the  shema  at  the  temple  every  dawn,  the 
destruction  of  the  world  by  fire,  the  one  thousand  or  six  thousand  years 
of  eschatology  (Jub.  4:30;  Slav.  En.  32:2;  33:1),  angelology  and 
dualism,  all  helped  to  color  the  Jewish  thought  and  phraseology.  Some 
of  these  ideas,  though  perhaps  of  Babylonian  origin  (cf.  Bousset, 
Relig.  d.  Jud.,  538;  SSderblom,  La  vie  future  d'aprii  le  Mcadlisme, 
223  f.)  were  direct  importations  from  Persia.  It  is  quite  probable  also 
that  certain  oriental  folk  tales  received  a  strong  impress  from  Persian 
sources  before  they  were  adopted  by  the  Jews  (e.g.,  Achichar,  Tobit, 
Esther).  Certain  laws  also,  as  leprosy,  seem  to  show  the  influence  of 
Persian  customs  (Fairweather,  Background  of  the  Gospels,  46-50).  No 
more  striking  testimony,  however,  to  the  widespread  cultural  dominancy 
of  this  people  is  found  than  that  preserved  in  the  far-famed  tombstone 
of  Antiochus  V,  which  bears  evidence  to  the  presence  of  Mithras-worship 
in  the  West  (cf .  Cumont,  Textes  et  monuments  figuris  rel.  aux  mystires 
de  MUhra,  II,  89,  187). 

Of  chief  significance  to  us,  however,  is  the  Grecian  influence  on 
Jewish  thought.  Judaism  was  in  many  ways  at  this  time  most  sus- 
ceptible to  the  type  of  influences  which  now  surrounded  it.  To  many 
of  their  leaders,  owing  to  the  irony  of  the  past,  the  hope  of  a  material 
kingdom  was  on  the  wane.  Distressing  oppressions  and  unfulfilled 
predictions  gave  birth  to  a  deepened  religious  sense  which  was  now 
ready  to  spiritualize  the  old  idea  of  the  Davidic  kingdom. 

From  the  time  of  Alexander,  the  Greeks  and  the  Grecian  culture 
surrounded  them  on  every  side.  The  caravans  passing  through  the 
land  were  chiefly  Greek.  Greek  colonies  were  everywhere.  The  Greek 
soldier,  the  oflScer  of  the  law,  and  the  tax-gatherer  were  famih'ar  figures 
in  the  streets  of  all  Jewish  villages  and  cities.  Greek  sanctuaries  with 
their  devotees  and  regular  worship  were  in  all  parts  of  the  land.  Greek 
architecture,  with  its  stately  columns  and  graceful,  simple  outlines,  was 
the  vogue  where  once  the  less  beautiful  structures  of  Syrian  and  Egyp- 
tian form  had  ruled.  The  social  life  of  the  Greek,  with  its  decorous 
affability  and  inviting  luxury,  as  well  as  the  splendor  of  the  foreign  court, 
breathed  a  new  atmosphere  over  the  bare  heights  of  Judah.  The 
ephebotvith  his  chlamys,  and  the  peripatetic  philosopher  with  his  mantle, 
moved  with  their  air  of  romance  and  charm  among  the  busy  throng  of 
the  market.    While  persecutions  at  times  did  break  out  against  the 


'  jii  Jiiii.  1  vm^mmummfufn^ 


wyUtriBMMtkaiMIMiMiMliilMiaiMiiai 


ttammttti 


THE  INDKECT  APOLOGETIC 


THE  INDIRECT  APOLOGETIC  SEEN  IN  THE  JEWISH  ADAP- 
TATION TO  THE  GREEK  ENVIRONMENT 

The  adoption  of  the  language  of  their  masters  was  the  first  important 
movement  in  this  direction.  The  susceptibility  of  the  Jews  in  this 
regard  was  earlier  illustrated  by  their  use  of  the  Canaanitbh  script  in 
the  early  days  of  the  kingdom,  their  later  appropriation  of  the  Aramaic 
language  in  exilic  and  post-exilic  times,  as  seen  both  in  Syria  and  Ele- 
phantine, and  by  the  still  later  adoption  of  the  Aramaic  square  character 
for  their  writing.  It  would  seem  that  the  first  generation  after  the  con- 
quest of  33J  B.C.  must  have  become  somewhat  acquainted  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  foreigners.  Intermarriage  with  the  Greeks,  which,  through 
various  prohibitions  (Jub.  20:4;  22:20;  25:1-10;  30:7,  10,  11;  cf.  I 
Mace.  1:15;  Tob.  3:8)  we  learn  was  not  uncommon,  would  promote  it. 
It  was  the  language  of  the  army,  the  language  of  the  new  commerce,  and 
the  language  of  the  court.  It  was  the  medium  of  the  finest  learning  of 
the  day.  The  profit  to  be  derived  from  the  knowledge  of  Greek,  in 
both  the  social  and  the  commercial  world,  would  be  a  strong  incentive 
toward  its  use  and  mastery.  Every  phase  of  public  life  gave  a  growing 
familiarity  with  it.  To  the  Diaspora  it  was  the  lingua  franca  of  the 
business  world. 

Thus  through  the  language  was  opened  the  door  to  some  of  the 
most  momentous  results  in  the  religious  thinking  of  the  Jews.  Not 
the  least  of  these  was  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  into 
Greek.  Hausrath  succinctly  expresses  the  apologetic  character  of  this 
work  when  he  says:  It  was  "the  first  apostle  to  go  out  into  all  the  world 
and  teach  all  people"  (Hausrath,  Bist.  of  N.T.  Times,  I,  141).  On  the 
whole,  it  seems  more  likely  that  this  work  was  the  result  of  a  movement 
from  within  Judaism  herself,  bom  of  a  desire  to  minister  to  her  own 
Greek-speaking  adherents,  than  that  it  was  primarily  initiated  by  a 
literature-loving  king  of  Egypt.  There  may  have  been  opp)osition  from 
the  more  orthodox  Jews  at  first,  but  in  the  course  of  two  centuries 
the  Septuagint  was  fully  accepted  as  bearing  the  divine  oracles  and  as 
on  a  par  with  the  Hebrew  itself  (Schiirer,  Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  3,  163). 

From  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  this  most  significant  work  of 
translation  we  find  the  Greek  language  a  most  acceptable  literary  medium 

4 


of  the  Jews.  Naturally  the  Diaspora  of  Alexandria  contributed  the 
larger  quota  to  this  activity.  The  importance  of  this  movement  to 
Jewish  life  and  thought  is  indicated  by  the  abundance  of  literature  which 
in  this  period  emanated  from  Jewish  pens. 

The  fragments  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  the  additions  to  Daniel  and 
Esther,  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  11  Maccabees,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
Slavonic  Enoch,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  III  and  IV  Maccabees,  IV 
Esdras,  besides  the  works  of  Joscphus,  Philo,  Aristeas,  Aristobulus,  and 
a  host  of  others  to  whom  we  have  only  the  barest  references,  all  attest 
the  popularity  and  activity  of  writers  in  Greek.  Further,  the  same 
conclusion  is  reached  by  the  fact  that  all  the  books  which  were  originally 
written  in  a  Semitic  language  were  speedily  translated  into  the  Greek, 
and  thus  preserved. 

Indeed,  so  completely  did  the  new  language  gain  acceptance  among 
the  dispersion,  that  very  early  it  was  admitted  as  a  legitimate  language 
for  most  of  the  functions  of  worship.  The  priestly  benediction  and  a 
few  special  passages  of  Scripture,  as  the  Tepkittim  and  Metusoth,  only 
were  reserved  for  use  exclusively  in  the  Hebrew  (Mishna,  Sola,  VII:  1, 
2;  Megilla,  1:8;  Schiirer,  Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  2,  284).  A  significant 
fact  is  that  from  this  early  period  there  has  not  been  found  a  single 
instance  in  which  Hebrew  is  the  language  used  for  tombstone  epitaphs 
(Schiirer,  Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  2,  284).  The  building  of  a  temple, 
which  was  modeled  after  that  in  Jerusalem,  on  Grecian  soil,  in  160  B.C., 
and  the  introduction  of  the  Jewish  ritual  there,  indicate  the  readjust- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Jews  to  the  new  Grecian  situation  (Schiirer, 
Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  2,  288). 

A  very  definite  evidence  of  the  way  the  Jews  adopted  the  culture  of 
their  neighbors  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  they  took  over  many  Greek 
names.  The  Hebrew  people  had  always  been  ready  to  pay  a  compli- 
ment to  a  foreign  nation  through  this  use  of  their  language.  Gad 
(Gen.  30:11),  Samson  (Judg.,  chap.  13),  Kush  (Zeph.  1:1),  Zerubbabel 
(Hag.  1:12),  Mordecai  (Esth.  2:7),  Bigvai  (Neh.  7:7) — and  the  non- 
Jewish  names  borne  by  the  Jews  in  Elephantine — all  attest  this  fact. 

The  following  proper  names,  which  are  either  Grecianized  Hebrew, 
or  pure  Greek,  are  illustrations  of  the  fact  that  this  tendency  became 
quite  common  in  these  later  days:  Alcimus  (I  Mace.  7:5;  9:54,  e<  al.), 
perhaps  the  Grecianized  form  of  Eliakin;  Jason  (I  Mace.  8: 17)  Grecian- 
ized  from  Joshua;  Onias  (II  Mace.  3:5),  for  Jonah;  Jannaeus  for 
Jonathan  (Jos.,  Ant.,  XIU,  xii). 

Of  names  which  are  pure  Greek  are  these  examples:   Aristobulus 


mm^m^^f^i^m 


rm^^mmfmit 


MiiiMiiiaaaAiMM^ 


ii«iirrii«aiirii[ 


itfijiniliitrttniili- 


•mttitlitMiamtiikitt^ttSilMiiamtiibmtKiiiam 


6  THE  JEWISH  APOLOCEnC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKLD 

(n  Mace.  I :  lo),  Eupolemus  (1  Mace.  8: 17;  II  Mace.  4:11),  Lysimachus 
(11  Mace.  4:29,  39,  40),  Menelaus  (II  Mace.  4:23),  Ptolemy  (I  Mace. 
16: ii),  Dositheus  (II  Mace.  12:19,  24),  Sosipater  (II  Mace.  4:27), 
Rhodocus  (II  Mace.  13:21),  Razis  (II  Mace.  14:37),  Antipater  (I  Mace. 
12: 16),  Epaphroditus  (Jos.,  Ant.,  pref.),  Dorotheus  (Arist.  182,  183, 
186).  Greek  names  were  so  much  in  favor  before  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  that  later  it  was  said,  "The  names  of  Israelites  outside  of 
Palestine  are  like  those  of  the  Gentiles"  (Jre.  Gilt.,  43J). 

In  a  less  measure  the  same  is  true  as  to  place  names:  Aphaerema 
(I  Mace.  II  134),  Accaron  (I  Mace.  10:89).  This  feature  is  particularly 
striking  in  the  cases  where  we  find  a  city  changing  its  old  name  in  favor 
of  a  new  Greek  one.  Haleb  became  Beroea;  Nisibis  became  Antioch, 
and  Acco  became  Ptolemais  (Bevan,  Jerus.  under  the  B.  Priests,  34). 
Sebaste  was  the  Grecian  name  given  to  Samaria  after  it  had  been  rebuilt 
and  re-peopled  by  the  Macedonians. 

The  names  of  the  months  likewise  suffered  change.  The  early 
Canaanitish  nomenclature  had  been  somewhat  displaced  by  Babylonian 
influence.  As  Abib  had  given  way  before  Nisan,  so  Nisan  is  now  sup- 
planted by  Xanthicus  of  the  Macedonians  (II  Mace.  11:30,  38).  In 
general,  while  the  old  month  names,  Elul  (I  Mace.  14:27),  Shebat 
(I  Mace.  16:14),  Adar  (I  Mace.  7:43,  49),  Adar-Sheni  (I  Mace.  9:3), 
Chislev  (I  Mace.  1:54),  and  also  the  newer  Babylonian  terminology, 
First  (I  Mace.  9:3),  Second  (I  Mace.  9:54),  Seventh  (I  Mace.  10:21), 
Ninth  (I  Mace.  4:32),  Twelfth  (II  Mace.  15:36),  still  obtain,  yet  for 
the  sake  of  adaptation  to  the  environment,  new  Greek  names  are  intro- 
duced. Xanthicus  (II  Mace.  11:30,  33,  38)  is  the  sixth  month  of  the 
Macedonian  calendar.  Dioscorinthius  (II  Mace.  11:21;  ef.  Tob.  2:12; 
Addit.  Esth.  13:6)  is  either  incorrect  for  Atw  Kopiv6lm>,  perhaps  for 
the  first  month  of  the  Macedonian  year,  or  for  Aio<r<tvpov,  the  third 
month  of  the  Cretan  calendar  (Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  I,  147).  The 
sourc!  of  Pachon  (III  Mace.  6:38),  the  name  used  in  Alexandria  for  the 
month  May  25-June  24,  and  Epiphi  (III  Mace.  6:38),  the  name  for 
the  following  month,  can  only  be  conjectured.  They  were  apparently 
accepted  from  Alexandria  and  may  have  been  of  Egyptian  origin  (cf. 
Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  I,  173).  j 

Greek  coinage  names  are  now  freely  used  as:  talent,  mina  (I  Mace 
15:18),  drachma  (II  Mace.  12:43).  These,  later,  gave  place  again  to 
the  Roman  as,  quadrans,  and  denarius. 

The  Greek  names  for  musical  instruments  likewise  found  their  way 
into  the  Hebrew  vocabulary  at  an  early  date.    Cithara  (LXX  Ps.  80: 2; 


I- 


mtmf^-wmmmmmmmm 


mm 


THE  INOISECT  APOtOGETIC  J 

I  Mace.  4: 24),  psalterion  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  19:18;  Eeelus.  40: 21),  tympantun 
(LXX  Judg.  11:34;  Exod.  15:20;  Jud.,  chap.  3;  I  Mace.  9:39)  were 
in  use  in  the  third  century  B.C. 

In  Slavonic  Enoch  we  have  the  Greek  names  of  the  planets,  Kronos, 
Aphrodite,  Ares,  Zeus,  Hermes,  Selene,  Helios,  and  the  order  preserved 
is  in  partial  agreement  with  that  of  the  Greek  physicists  (Slav.  En.  30: 
3-5 ;  cf.  Cicero  De  Div.  ii.  43).  The  author  of  "Wisdom  "  has  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  terms  of  Greek  science,  and  considers  instruction 
therein  to  be  the  work  of  God  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7 :  17-22). 

One  of  the  most  important  contributions  of  the  Greek  language  to 
the  Jew,  however,  was  its  philosophic  terminology.  With  its  numerous 
synonyms  and  its  fine  distinctions  it  made  possible  an  advance  in  thought 
which  was  prohibited  by  the  meagemess  of  the  Hebrew.  Ideas  such  as 
friendship,  conscience,  virtue,  deathlessness,  etc.,  which  to  the  Jew  had 
existed  only  in  the  concrete  example,  could  now  be  definitely  expressed 
by  a  single  word. 

A  more  varied  and  a  vastly  different  ethical  vocabulary  was  now  at 
hand.  Moderation,  ambition,  leisure,  fame,  and  freedom  from  passion 
are  in  part  the  ideals  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  phrases  respond  adequately 
to  their  thought.  The  fundamental  virtues  which  the  Hebrew  expressed 
by  derivatives  of  such  roots  as:  SHX ,  I^K ,  1'3 ,  ICn ,  ttjn ,  7T ,  ST, 
DH3 ,  pTS ,  IBTp ,  D5TD ,  tJBID ,  were  now  re-expressed  by  more  numer- 
ous and  more  definite  terms  as:  iya$ii,  ipirt),  ivi/Ma,  St/uk,  irapaiU, 
^yvof,  A\^0fia,  yvtMri^,  SLKottyrwrj,  (wrcfitia,  (vXoyurria,  iyKpartia,  $aptrim, 
Upoc,  KoXAof,  o<rtof,  muScta,  ffiortf,  <r(/jivoi,  fTw^ia,  t^poyyjtriK,  XP^fM. 

A  substantial  contribution  is  also  made  in  words  of  eosmological 
significance:    atSi;^,  Afxoptpcv  vkrp,  i€futrvpyf'iy,  Stotxctv,  jcoc/ioc. 

Very  numerous  and  significanf  were  the  terms  now  adopted  which 
were  used  to  characterize  the  Deity.  The  most  important  are:  iriyni, 
ilfJMpftivij,  iirtKUifa.  r^s  owuic,  htaworvft,  ^rffuovpyoi,  Swaimfv,  Xoyo«,  ffo^M, 
firywrro?,  fiovap^o^,  vpoaiinrov,  wavovpyiK,  wayroKpartttp,  vrooToo'ic,  v^oirrof, 
Xapuriui. 

Perhaps  more  significant  still  is  the  terminology  foimd  in  the  field 
of  psychology.  The  Greeks  were  the  philosophers  of  antiquity.  The 
Hebrew  Wisdom  literature  is  an  indication  that  intellectual  leaven  was 
at  work  among  the  Jews.  The  founder  of  the  ethico-intellectual  system 
of  Stoicism  was  a  Jew.  The  Greek  in  return  now  hands  his  nation  an 
adequate  terminology  for  their  growing  intellectual  conceptions.  The 
liberal  extent  to  which  they  availed  themselves  of  this  is  seen  by  the  use 
of  words  such  as  the  following:     iSaKurla,  iSivarot,  i^Bxipvia,  iwK^mn, 


^mrmmrn 


r^mr 


tjummt^ititiiu 


8  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGEnC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKLD 

(It  {•i^r  almior,  ynunt,  iri<rr«,  wmSeio,  /iMurAu,  /»Km}pu>r,  nit,  <l>pr}r, 
^poKi;mt,  ^urt{ui',  <ruwiSi)<n«,  <rrcv>ia,  V™X7- 

Words  of  an  official  character,  cither  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  are 
found.  Some  of  those  of  an  ecclesiastical  significance  are:  riXtiot, 
ftva-nit,  (rwSpuiv,  while  yijpovo-ia,  l<t>€fiM,  refer  to  the  secular  side  of  life. 

Literary  influences  of  a  much  more  general  and  wide-sweeping  type 
than  those  noticed  above  were  at  work.  Xf^!ptw  (I  Mace.  ij:6; 
UMacc.  i:io;  9:19;  11:34;  III  Mace.  3 : 1 2 ;  7:1),  the  Greek  epistolary 
greeting,  is  now  found  side  by  side  with,  or  supersedes,  the  old  Hebrew 

cnbio- 

The  Greek  chronological  system,  the  first  really  satisfactory  one 
used  by  the  Jews,  finds  its  way  into  common  use  as  early  as  the  time  of 
the  wTiting  of  I  Maccabees  (I  Mace,  i :  10).  Henceforth  the  beginning 
of  the  Seleucid  era,  312  B.c  ,  forms  a  customary  starting-point. 

As  early  as  Ben  Sirach,  divisions  were  made  in  dissertations  in  accord- 
ance with  Greek  custom,  and  appropriate  chapter  titles  were  inserted 
(Ecclus.  18:30;  20:27;  23:7;  24:1;  30:1,  16;  44:1?  51:';  clJiw- 
Enc.  on  "  Sirach").  This  is  the  earliest  known  illustration  of  this  in  the 
writing  of  a  Hebrew.  Here  again,  and  in  the  translation  of  Esther, 
the  writer  or  scribe  appends  his  full  signature,  as  was  common  in  Grecian 
literature. 

Greek  literary  forms  and  ideas  also  quite  naturally  displaced  those 
of  the  Hebrew.  For  the  first  time  in  their  experience  a  Jew  wrote  his- 
tory for  its  own  sake.  Demetrius  Phalereus,  the  elder  Philo,  Eupole- 
mus,  .\rtapanus,  Aristobulus  (of.  Drummond,  Phil.  Jud.,  I,  236), 
Josephus,  and  the  author  of  I  Maccabees,  were  all  in  the  line  of  suc- 
cession of  such  writers  as  Herodotus  and  Diodorus,  rather  than  the 
followers  of  those  religious  historians  who  wrote  Samuel,  Kings,  and 
Chronicles.  Epistolography,  though  no  new  thing  to  the  Hebrew,  now 
flourished  under  the  patronage  of  a  letter-writing  people.  Aristeas, 
Heraclitus,  Diogenes  seem  with  reasonable  certainty  to  be  the  names 
of  Jews  who  were  noted  for  their  letters  (Schiirer,  Uisl.  Jew.  Peop.,  Ill, 
a,  306-20).  Beyond  this  we  have  a  number  of  epistles  in  the  various 
historical  books  (cf.  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Esdras,  II  and  III  Maccabees). 

We  know  that  to  the  Greek  literati  the  style  was  often  of  greater 
importance  than  the  content.  Hence  to  the  Jew  the  form  became  very 
significant.  Greek  figures  of  speech  were  appropriated.  Contrarieties 
which  smack  of  the  Aristotelian  method  are  found  in  Ben  Sirach  (Ecdus. 
35:7-15).  The  stoic  paradox  is  illustrated  in  IV  Maccabees  (7:25; 
14:  j),  and  an  excellent  example  of  the  familiar  rhetorical  sorites  is  found 


THE  INDIRECT  APOLOGETIC 


in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (7: 17-20).    This  book  itself  is  a  good  illus- 
tration of  an  effort  toward  literary  style  rather  than  the  presentation 
of  a  logical  discussion  of  the  theme.    Much  of  its  background,  as  the 
forgetfulness  of  16:11,  which  is  apparently  Lethean,  and  the  argiunent    " 
from  design  in  13:1,  is  decidedly  Grecian. 

A  noticeable  tendency  is  that  toward  new  poetical  forms.  Greek 
rhythm  now  displaces  the  Hebrew  parallelism  and  assonance.  Only  ^ 
remnants  of  what  seems  to  have  been  a  very  wide  literary  activity  have 
been  preserved  to  us.  Thcodotus  is  known  to  us  only  by  a  mere  frag- 
ment of  his  poem  on  Sichem,  which  has  been  preserved  in  Eusebius 
(Praep.  evang.,  IX,  22). 

Ezekiel,  the  tragic  poet  of  perhaps  the  second  century  B.C.,  b  the 
only  dramatist  of  whom  we  have  any  reference.  Fragments  of  his 
drama  of  the  E.xodus  have  come  down  to  us,  again  through  Eusebius 
(PrMp.  evang.,  IX,  2&;  XXIX,  4-6, 11, 13).  Here  the  scriptural  story  of 
the  Exodus,  with  some  embellishments,  is  dramatized  in  iambic  trimeter.' 

Philo,  the  poet  of  the  second  century,  was  the  author  of  an  epic 
poem  on  Jerusalem,  which  was  written  in  good  hexameter,  imitating 
the  Homeric  verse  (Euseb.,  Praep.  evang.,  IX,  20,  24,  37).  The  same 
measure  is  found  in  much  of  the  far-famed  Sibylline  Oracles.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  Duhm  would  find  an  imitation  of  the  same  move- 
ment in  Isa.  26:1-19  (Enc.  Bib.  3803). 

Pseudepigraphy  is  again  one  of  the  direct  results  of  this  national 
contact.  The  necessity  of  the  situation  compelled  it.  Many  names 
of  the  past  were  greatly  honored.  During  the  closing  centuries  of  the 
period  there  were  to  the  pious  leaders  but  few  breathing  spaces  from 
some  terror  within  or  without.  To  meet  the  need,  the  worldK)rder  was 
interpreted  apocalyptically.  The  ruling  nation  hence  must  always  be 
overthrown.  Such  a  hope  spread  broadcast  would  bring  upon  its  author 
the  charge  of  treason.  Nor  could  a  living  man  inspire  his  own  gen- 
eration so  well  as  one  of  the  Fathers.  For  three  centuries  or  more  the 
idea  of  a  Canon  of  Scripture  had  been  rapidly  crystallizing,  and  this 
made  it  growingly  difficult  for  the  living  voice  to  gain  a  sympathetic 
audience  (cf.  Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  II,  viii  f.).  So  this  double  need 
opened  the  door  wide  for  the  names  of  those  specially  worthy.  Moses, 
Elijah,  Enoch  were  names  with  which  to  conjure.  The  Twelve  Patri- 
archs are  called  upon  to  utter  their  forecast  of  the  future  while  ostensibly 
blessing  their  various  tribes.  Noah,  Solomon,  Isaiah,  Manasseh,  Jere- 
miah, Baruch,  all  have  their  scope  enlarged  by  the  method  used  in  these 
religious  crises. 


10        THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETK  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOBLD 

Further,  the  use  of  heathen  names  seems  to  have  been  resorted  to 
for  the  purpose  of  bearing  favorably  to  a  hostile  people  the  religious 
ideals  of  the  writers.  Schurer  {Uist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  3,  316  f.)  gives  a 
number  of  cases  in  which  a  Greek  name  seems  to  be  the  doorway  through 
which  over-zealous  Jews  made  their  entrance  to  the  reading  public. 
Work  of  the  same  type  and  for  the  same  purpose,  is  done  by  Pseudo- 
Aristeas  and  Pseudo-Hecataeus  (Schurer,  Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  3,  313). 

Jewish  interpolations  in  old  Grecian  writers  are  of  frequent  occur- 
rence. This  is  seen  in  Phocylides  (vss.  84,  85,  139,  147,  148a).  Forged 
letters  (I  Mace.  6:10-15;  II  Mace.  9:12-17;  11:16-33)  were  also  pro- 
duced for  the  same  purpose.  Fiction,  as  found  in  III  Maccabees,  which 
may  be  called  a  religious  novel,  having  for  its  subject  the  triumph  of  the 
Jews  over  their  enemies  through  divine  intervention,  thus  presenting 
a  series  of  incredible  fables,  was  invented  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  day. 
The  most  significant  example  of  this  type  of  work  is,  however,  seen  in 
the  Sibylline  Oracles."  This  is  the  climax  of  propaganda  under  a  heathen 
mask.  It  most  emphatically  indicated  how  completely  the  Jew  had 
been  brought  under  the  spell  of  his  conquerors  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
how  aggressive  he  was  in  the  publishing  of  his  own  convictions. 

To  the  same  exigencies  as  those  which  produced  pseudepigraphy 
we  owe  the  abundant  apocalyptic  material  of  this  age.  The  roots  of 
this  literature  go  back  to  the  early  conceptions  of  the  day  of  Yahweh. 
The  unfulfilled  hopes  of  national  prosperity,  which  had  been  stimulated 
by  the  prophets,  prepared  the  way  for  the  idea  of  the  world  to  come. 
Persia  had  contributed  something  in  sj-mbol  and  conception.  Now 
the  hopelessness  of  the  nation  in  her  own  strength  and  the  need  of  a 
secret  code  which  only  the  initiated  might  read  caused  a  rapid  develop- 
ment and  elaboration  along  these  lines.  Under  this  guise  history  was 
rewritten.  Daniel,  Enoch,  Twelve  Patriarchs,  the  Book  of  Jubilees, 
the  .\ssumption  of  Moses,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  Baruch,  and  Slavonic 
Enoch  suggest  or  sketch  earlier  history  of  the  chosen  people,  and  hope 
greatly  to  comfort  the  stricken  nation  by  the  \-ision  of  world-victory 
for  them  in  the  immediate  future  through  the  power  of  their  God.  Pri- 
marily this  was  all  strongly  apologeric.  Its  great  task  was  to  keep  alive 
the  faith  of  the  people  by  squaring  the  promises  of  the  prophets  with  the 

*  The  contention  of  Geffcken  in  Vnttrsuchunt  d.  Komposition  und  EtUsUhung  der 
Oracula  Sibylline,  to  the  effect  that  the  Sibyl  had  at  an  earlier  time  been  appropriated 
by  the  Babylonians  and  tliat  through  them  the  Hebrews  were  influenced,  even  if 
proven,  wliich  is  rather  a  difficult  proposition,  would  scarcely  affect  this  statement. 
Not  imtil  the  Greek  period  have  we  any  literary  result  from  such  influence. 


mm 


THE  INDISECT  APOtOGETIC  xi 

present  crushing  calamities.  To  the  apocalyptists  the  hopelessness  of 
the  present  was  nearing  the  end,  and  the  future  was  brighter  than  the 
most  glowing  expectations.  Yahweh  would  keep  faith  with  hb  people. 
These  writers  were  interpreters,  not  only  of  the  times,  but  also  of  the 
Scriptures.  Ezek.,  chaps.  38,  39,  Joel,  Zech.,  chaps.  9-14,  Isa.,  chaps. 
24-27,  furnished  a  broad  basis  for  elaboration.  The  seventy  years  of 
Jeremiah  is  a  time-connotation  which  has  to  be  reinterpreted  many 
times  (Jer.  29:10;  cf.  Dan.  9:2;  9:25,  27;  En.  89:59;  IV  Esdr.  u: 
11,12;  Ep.  Jer.,  vs.  3).  Weeks,  generations,  periods,  times,  and  millen- 
nia are  among  the  resources  of  the  apologists  whereby  chronology  may 
be  definite  enough  for  the  comfort  of  the  present  generation  and  vague 
enough  to  be  manipulated  by  following  ages. 

The  most  decidedly  apologetic  move  from  the  literary  standpoint  is 
found,  however,  in  the  use  of  allegory  as  a  system  of  scriptural  inter- 
pretation. The  Hebrew  was  not  unfamiliar  with  allegory  as  a  medium 
of  conveying  his  message.  Instances  of  this  are  preserved  in  the  Old 
Testament.  But  as  a  method  of  interpretation  with  universal  appli- 
cation he  was  innocent  of  it.  Midrash  was  the  post-exilic  method  of  ' 
bringing  Scripture  up  to  date.  However,  allegory  as  a  thoroughgoing 
system  for  exegetical  purposes  was  found  ready  to  hand.  It  was  a 
method  which  had  been  the  result  of  a  great  need.  The  cultured  Greeks 
could  neither  literally  accept  the  crude  mythologies  of  earlier  days,  nor 
could  these  with  their  wealth  of  tradition  and  poetry  be  banished  from 
the  minds  of  the  people.  This  early  literature,  which  was  so  rooted  in 
the  thinking  of  the  common  people,  could  be  given  value  by  the  cul- 
tured only  as  they  found  in  it  some  deep  fundamental  truth.  Hence 
was  bom  that  system  which  can  find  the  message  it  wants  in  any  lit- 
erature. In  the  sixth  century  B.C.  this  method  was  applied  to  Homer 
by  Theogenes  of  Rhegium.  This  was  an  apology  for  the  poetry  ol 
Homer.  The  Sophists  applied  the  same  method  very  widely,  and 
Aristotle  did  not  entirely  shun  it.  In  the  fifth  century  Anaxagoras 
controlled  by  the  same  movement,  asserted  that  Homer's  subject  was  in 
reality  virtue  or  righteousness.  In  the  hands  of  Metrodorus  of  Lamp- 
sacus,  who  was  his  pupil,  Herf,  Athene,  and  Zeus  were  conceived  of  as 
purely  physical  principles.  The  Cynics  elaborated  the  method,  and  the 
Stoics  made  it  their  system  par  excellence.  By  them  all  the  old  super- 
stitions were  made  to  do  full  duty  in  supporting  their  own  tenets.  To 
Chrysippus,  Zeus  was  the  same  as  Xoyot,  Ares  was  equal  to  war,  etc 
(cf.  Siegfried,  Philo  v.  Alex.,  8-24;  Adams,  Relig.  Teachers  oj Greeu,  13; 
Geffcken,  art.  "Allegory,"  Enc.  Relig.  and  Eih.). 


PMP 


■■■^■*^- 


\a  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GKEOAN  WOBIB 

Hence  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  method  which  has  of  necessity  been 
introduced  by  most  people  who  have  canonized  and  Uteralized  their 
ancient  scriptures  (this  is  evidenced  by  the  use  of  the  Vedas  and  the 
Koran,  as  well  as  that  of  Homer),  should  be  heartily  adopted  by  the  Jew 
for  the  purpose  of  interpreting  his  own  scriptures.  It  was  the  scientific 
method  of  the  day,  and  proved  to  be  particularly  useful  for  the  purpose 
of  reconciling  the  Pentateuch  with  Grecian  phUosophy.  Almost  every- 
thing, says  Philo,  or  most  things  in  the  legislaUon  are  related  allegori- 
caUy  (De  Jos.,  U,  46). 

The  thorough  adoption  of  it  as  a  method  of  exegesis  was  a  somewhat 
slow  process.  Clear  traces  of  its  influence  are  found  in  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon.  Here  the  serpent  is  allegorized  into  the  devil  (Wisd.  of  SoL 
2:j4),  the  robe  of  the  high  priest  is  made  out  of  the  cosmos  (Wisd.  of 
Sol.  18:  J4),  and  ao^,  in  the  tenth  chapter,  is  the  guard  and  guide  of 
the  Patriarch  and  of  the  eariy  naUon  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  10:17).  The  brazen 
serpent  of  the  wUdemess  is  a  symbol  of  salvaUon  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  16:5,  7) 
and  the  pillar  of  salt  that  of  an  unbelieving  soul  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  10:7). 
The  darkness  over  Egypt  was  only  a  symbol  of  a  deeper  spiritual  darkness 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  17:21),  and  Hades  is  personified  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  1:14). 
In  IV  Maccabees  are  a  few  traces  of  the  same  treatment.  The  seven 
days  of  creation  represented  the  seven  Maccabean  leaders  (IV  Mace. 
14:8),  and  the  serpent  tempting  Eve  in  the  garden  of  Eden  is  but  the 
impulse  of  the  wUl  (IV  Mace.  18:8).  Slavonic  Enoch  finds  in  the  Greek 
letters  of  the  name  Adam,  the  proof  that  the  first  man  was  formed  from 
substances  from  the  four  comers  of  the  earth  (Slav.  En.  30:13;  cf. 
Sibyl.  Or.,  Ill,  S4-J6). 

Aristeas  makes  some  use  of  allegory.  In  interpretmg  the  law  and 
defending  it  against  the  attacks  of  the  Greeks  he  held  that  absUnence 
from  certain  foods  stood  for  spiritual  absUnence  from  violence,  evil 
pracrices,  etc.  (Aristeas  144-50)-  In  the  permission  to  eat  certain  ani- 
mals there  was  a  deeper  significance  than  that  which  might  appear  on 
the  surface.  It  was  an  injunction  to  pracrice  religious  meditation 
(Aristeas  160).  Likewise  Aristobulus  is  reported  by  Origen  to  have 
made  use  of  allegory  (Coni.  Cdsus,  IV,  51). 

While  undoubtedly  there  was  quite  general  appreciation  and  a  not 
/  infrequent  adopUon  of  this  Stoic  principle  of  interpretation,  it  was  left 
to  Philo  to  perfect  it  as  a  system  and  apply  it  in  the  most  thorough- 
going way  to  the  Old  TesUment  Scriptures.  Philo  was  a  Pharisee, 
and  hence  a  legalist.  At  the  same  time  he  was  trained  and  saturated 
in  Greek  philosophy.    Steeped  in  the  thought  of  his  own  day,  yet  for 


MliarM««aadlai 


THE  INDIRECT  APOLOGETIC 


13 


the  literature  and  the  religion  of  his  fathers  he  had  the  greatest  zeal. 
These  extremes  of  thought  he  bridges  in  a  way  satisfactory  to  himself 
by  the  application  of  allegory  to  all  those  features  in  tie  Scriptures 
which  did  not  literally  meet  with  his  approval.  He  goes  farther.  Those 
features  which  superficially  seem  only  to  be  commonplace  or  otherwise 
insignificant,  inasmuch  as  to  him  they  are  divine  oracles,  must  have 
some  inner  spiritual  significance,  which  is  hidden  only  to  those  whose 
eyes  are  holden  (Philo,  Yonge's  translation,  I,  18,  33,  41,  52,  166, 
192,  194,  284;  II,  23,  41,  57,  64;  III,  16,  109,  136;  IV,  253,  26,  284, 
et  al.). 

As  Philo  is  the  thoroughgoing  exponent  both  of  Grecian  thought 
and  interpretative  method,  a  few  glimpses  of  his  system  may  here  be 
given  by  way  of  illustrarion.  His  general  attitude  toward  the  letter  of 
Scripture  may  be  gleaned  from  one  quotation.  In  interpreting  the  alle- 
gories of  the  sacred  laws  Philo  writes  in  respect  to,  "  He  shall  watch  thy 
head  and  thou  shall  watch  his  heel"  (Gen.  3:15):  "This  expression  is, 
as  to  its  language,  a  barbarism,  but  as  to  the  meaning  which  is  conveyed 
by  it,  a  correct  expression"  (De  Leg.  All.  67). 

To  him  all  the  numbers  used  in  the  Scriptures  were  significant  of 
spiritual  values.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  when  we  remember  the 
place  they  played  in  Grecian  thought  from  the  time  of  Pythagoras  on. 
In  Philo's  system  number  was  akin  to  arrangement.  For  instance,  God 
made  the  world  in  six  days,  "not  because  the  Creator  stood  in  need  of 
length  of  time;  but  because  the  things  created  required  arrangement; 
and  number  is  akin  to  arrangement;  and  of  all  numbers  six  is,  by  the 
laws  of  nature,  the  most  productive.  For  of  all  numbers  from  the  unit 
upward,  it  is  the  first  perfect  one,  being  made  equal  to  its  parts,  and 
being  made  complete  by  them;  the  number  three  being  half  of  it,  and 
the  number  two  a  third  of  it,  and  the  unit  a  sixth  of  it,  and,  so  to  say, 
it  is  formed  so  as  to  be  both  male  and  female,  and  is  made  up  of  the 
power  of  both  natures;  for  in  existing  things  the  odd  number  is  the  male, 
and  the  even  is  the  female,  accordingly  of  odd  numbers  the  first  is  the 
number  three,  and  of  even  numbers  the  first  is  two,  and  the  two  num- 
bers multiplied  together  make  six.  It  is  fitting,  therefore,  that  the 
world,  being  the  most  perfect  of  created  things,  should  be  made  accord- 
ing to  the  perfect  number,  namely,  six  "  {De  Mundi  Opif.  3). 

His  theory  of  the  inner  meaning  of  proper  names  is  indicated  in  the 
following  scheme,  which  he  uses  throughout  all  his  writings  with  a  rare 
consistency:  Abel  is  lover  of  God;  Joseph  is  the  diversified  pride  of  life; 
Ishmael  is  the  sophist,  the  exponent  of  wild  opinions;  Israel  is  seeing 


^vipniipK* 


MaiWkHtMMaU 


14        THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORIO 

God;  Jacob  is  virtue  acquired  by  practice;  Isaac  is  self-taught  offspring; 
Cain  is  wickedness;  Enoch  is  grace;  Phanuel  is  turning  away  from  God; 
Gideon  is  retreat  from  robbers;  Aaron  is  uttered  speech;  Leah  is  virtue; 
Asher  is  riches;  Sara  is  prudence;  Rebecca  is  patience;  Dinah  is  judg- 
ment; Manasseh  is  forgetfulness;  Laban  is  mind  without  wisdom; 
Abraham  is  virtue  derived  from  instruction,  etc. 

Names  of  countries  also  are  interpreted  as  having  some  peculiar 
inner  meaning:  Egypt  stands  for  passions;  Sodom  is  barren  of  wisdom ; 
Country  is  body;  Chaldea  is  opinion;  Haran  is  land  of  outward  sense; 
Ephraim  is  memory;  Canaan  is  wickedness;  Edom  is  earthly;  Meshek 
is  eternal  sense;   Amorite  is  sophist. 

Likewise,  when  animals  are  spoken  of  In  Holy  Writ  there  is  a  hidden 
meaning  which  only  the  initiated  may  know:  Horse  is  restive  passion; 
cattle  is  irrational  nature;  ram  is  speech;  goat  is  external  sense;  turtle- 
dove is  divine  wisdom;  pigeon  is  human  wisdom;  reptile  is  soul  rooted 
in  the  ground;  serpent  is  concupiscence;  raven  is  wickedness;  brazen 
serpent  is  patient  endurance;  camel  is  memory. 

Further,  the  commonplace  things  of  earthly  life  are  fraught  with 
sterling  philosophic  meaning  for  those  who  can  read:  Charioteer  is 
mind;  belly  is  pleasure;  feet  is  support  of  pleasure;  shoulder  b  labor; 
breast  is  passion ;  ark  is  body;  cherubim  is  time — eternity;  candlestick 
is  heaven;  sword  is  heaven ;  house  is  soul;  vine  is  folly;  wine  is  greedi- 
ness; Jordan  is  deceit;  heaven  is  mind;  water  is  passions  or  mind;  river 
is  speech;  rod  is  education ;  pitcher  is  teaching;  manna  is  divine  word; 
first  fruit  is  full  doctrine;  night  is  folly;  day  is  wisdom;  Paradise  b 
wisdom;  flame  is  virtue;  sun  is  mind;  rib  is  virtue;  man  b  mind; 
woman  is  outer  sense;  priest  is  conviction;  high  priest  b  reason. 

The  above  is  only  a  suggestion  of  the  exhaustive  and  thoroughgoing 
scheme  of  this  master  of  allegory.  It  is  readily  seen  that  his  task  was 
no  insincere  one.  He  not  only  finds  history  in  the  sacred  writings,  but 
everywhere  there  must  be  an  inner  meaning.  Beneath  the  suriace  he 
reads,  as  Greeks  and  Romans  had  done  before  him  (cf .  Cicero  De  Nat. 
Deo.  ii.  26;  iii.  24),  the  interplay  of  virtues  and  the  subtle  but  none  the 
less  convincing  elaboration  of  true  philosophic  dogma.  By  the  efficient 
use  of  his  method  he  made  the  Old  Testament  law,  discourse  in  the 
accents  and  syllogisms  of  contemporary  Greek  thought.  In  this  he  was 
perhaps  the  most  outstanding  apologete  of  Judaism  in  all  her  history. 
Certainly  he  perfected  the  movement  among  hb  own  people,  which  had 
been  in  course  of  development  for  more  than  six  centuries,  and  which 
later  was  adopted  by  some  of  the  early  leaders  of  the  Christian  church. 


i 


TBE  INDIKECI  APOLOGETIC 


IS 


Beyond  the  appropriation  of  the  language  of  the  more  cultured 
nation  and  the  significant  change  of  front  which  came  about  thereby, 
the  Jewish  people  also  adopted  many  of  the  general  customs  of  their 
conquerors,  and  thus  reduced  very  considerably  the  chasm  between 
them.  Nowhere  was  the  impact  of  Greece  on  Palestine  felt  more  strongly 
than  in  the  social  life  of  the  people.  The  virile  Greek  overlords  were 
almost  unparalleled  as  propagandists.  Simultaneously  with  the  con- 
quest of  their  arms  and  the  march  of  their  armies  they  introduced  their 
social  customs.  Here  Hellenism  and  Hebraism  came  together  in  close 
contact  for  the  first  time.  The  luxurious  living,  the  social  freedom,  and 
the  riotous  pleasures  of  the  shores  of  the  Aegean  were  now  transplanted 
to  the  barren  hillsides  of  Judean  life.  Greek  ideals  that  appealed  to 
the  pleasure-loving  side  of  the  youth  of  the  land  were  thus  disseminated 
through  media  which  were  all  but  irresistible. 

The  stadium,  with  its  physical  struggles  and  the  splendid  develop- 
ment and  achievements  of  the  participants,  soon  attracted  the  native 
populace  in  and  around  every  Greek  city  and  enlisted  the  services  of 
many  of  the  youths  of  the  land  in  its  contests  (II  Mace.  4: 13-16).  The 
hippodrome,  with  its  recklessness  and  wild  excitement,  drew  its  motley 
mass  of  patrons  from  every  race  and  from  every  walk  in  life  (III  Mace. 
4:11;  T.  Jos.  20:3).  The  gymnasium  was  of  perhaps  still  greater 
and  more  far-reaching  influence  (I  Mace.  1:14;  II  Mace.  4:9-14;  IV 
Mace.  4:20).  This  was  an  unmistakable  expression  of  Greek  life  and 
thought.  In  developing  the  body  they  were  living  out  their  fundamental 
demand  for  beauty  of  form.  This  presented  to  the  Jewish  youth  an 
ambition  which  was  entirely  unknown  to  his  forefathers.  The  strength 
of  that  appeal  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  many  of  those  whose  fathers  con- 
sidered it  the  greatest  stigma  to  be  "  uncircimicized,"  now  voluntarily 
put  away  the  sign  of  their  national  religion  (II  Mace.  4:12-17;  11:24; 
Jub.  3:31;  7:20;  I  Mace.  1:15;  Assump.  Mos.  8:1-3;  Jos.,  y4n<.,  XII, 
v,  1).  In  fact,  Jewish  thought  itself  became  revolutionized.  It  was 
only  because  of  such  influences  as  the  above  that  a  Jew  later  could  utter 
as  his  own  the  ideals  of  the  Greek,  "  He  that  striveth  for  the  mastery  b 
temperate  in  all  things"  (I  Cor.  9:25).  But  the  gj-mnasium  was  not 
merely  for  the  development  of  the  physical.  It  was  a  social  center.  It 
was  a  place  of  companionships,  and  a  stimulant  to  ambition.  Related 
to  it  and  organized  under  it  were  guilds  of  young  men  called  tpheboi. 
The  members  of  the  guild  wore  an  attractive  uniform,  a  broad-rimmed 
hat  or  cap,  high-laced  boots,  and  a  chlamys  fastened  around  the  shoulders 
with  a  brooch,  and  on  certain  public  occasions  marched  in  procession  in 


i6 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOCETIC  TO  IBE  GSEdAN  WOKLD 


all  their  regalia.  The  cap  (wrnunt)  was  a  sign  of  subjection  to  Greek 
customs  (11  Mace.  4: 12-15;  cf-  Ath.  537  {.).  Certain  of  the  princes  of 
the  subject  race  were  admitted  into  the  inner  circles  of  these  guilds. 
Jonathan  was  admitted  to  the  rank  of  Friend,  and  also  Kinsmen  by 
Balas  (Bevan,  Jerus.  u.  B.  Priest,  104-6).  Thus  in  a  most  definite  way 
was  the  youth  drawn  into  the  currents  of  Greek  national  life  and  inocu- 
lated with  its  spirit.  Indeed  the  strong  tendency  was  for  secession  of 
the  people,  particularly  the  youth,  from  the  cold  and  barren  regime  which 
had  been  inherited  from  the  early  experience  of  their  ancestors,  to  the 
more  mellow  atmosphere  of  the  new  culture  (III  Mace.  2:32;  cf.  II 
Mace.  4:12-15).  The  actual  situation  is  well  portrayed  in  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs:  "Ye  shall  make  your  daughters  singing  girls  and  harlots, 
and  ye  shall  mingle  in  the  abominations  of  the  Gentiles"  (T.  Judah  23 : 2). 

While  the  agora  with  its  public  discussions  and  its  intellectual  out- 
look did  not  immediately  affect  so  wide  a  circle  as  did  some  of  the  more 
popular  movements,  nevertheless,  it  did  infect  a  few  very  deeply  and 
essentially  with  Hellenic  ideals.  The  theater,  however,  with  its  unequal 
merits  ranging  from  the  poorest  comedies  to  the  works  of  the  great 
dramatists,  was  a  school  which  cast  its  spell  on  all  classes  of  citizens 
alike.  Thus  it  was  not  long  before  a  knowledge  of  Greek  literature 
seemed  to  be  a  sine  qua  non  of  culture.  This  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  from  this  period  there  has  been  preserved  much  Jewish  literature 
in  Greek,  but  very  little  in  the  mother  tongue. 

The  influence  of  architecture  was  also  felt.  On  every  side  the  form 
of  the  Corinthian  column  and  the  decorative  ornamentation  of  Greek 
art  was  found.  Her  buildings  were  erected  in  all  the  main  dries  of  the 
country.  The  wealthy  Jew  modeled  his  residence  after  the  more  ornate 
and  more  fashionable  new  structures.  In  the  time  of  Anriochus  Epiph- 
anes,  Jason  received  permission  to  remodel  Jerusalem  on  Hellenic 
lines.  Later  the  Herodian  temple  bore  witness  to  the  prevailing  type  of 
architecture  (Bevan,  Jerus.  u.  H.  Priest,  79;  Jos.,  Ant.,  XV,  xi,  5). 

Government,  changing  with  the  growing  city  life,  grew  apace. 
Alexander  the  Great  was  a  noted  city  builder,  and  the  new  life  which 
was  infused  throughout  Syria  set  its  currents  strongly  toward  city  life. 
Thus  the  city  became  the  ideal.  Only  under  such  an  influence  could 
Ben  Sirach  contemptuously  cry:  "How  can  he  have  wisdom  .... 
whose  talk  is  of  bullocks?"  (Ecclus.  38:25).  The  very  consritution  <rf 
the  Jewish  commonwealth  could  not  fail  to  be  radically  affected  thereby. 

The  elders  (mpT)  seem  not  only  to  have  been  affected  in  their  com- 
posirion  and  function,  though  the  exact  influence  is  not  definitely  known, 


^mvmmn^Hp^ft 


•m^ 


THE  INSntECT  APOLOGETIC 


«7 


but  the  new  situarion  gave  them  a  new  name,  yripmxrCa.  This  name  is 
first  met  in  I  Maccabees  (I  Mace.  12:6;  cf.  LXX  II  Chron.  19:8). 
Later  we  find  references  to  it  in  other  books  (Judith  4:8;  11:14;  15:8; 
IIMacc.  1:10;  4:44;  11:28;  IIIMacc.  1:8).  The  high  priest  presided 
over  it.  It  seems  to  have  been  constituted  by  annual  elecUon,  and 
thus  some  changes  from  the  old  aristocrarie  idea  were  in  full  swing. 
So  far  as  it  is  possible  to  trace,  it  seems  feasible  to  think  that  this  is  the 
same  body  as  that  which  is  known  better  by  the  later  name,  again  a 
foreign  one,  Sanhedrin  (Jos.,  Ant.,  XIV,  ix;  4;  cf.  Charles,  Apoc.  and 
Pseud.,  I,  in). 

The  scientific  thought  of  the  Greek  world  no  doubt  was  readily 
accepted  by  many  of  the  Jews.  Sirach  is  urgent  in  his  recommendarion 
to  culrivate  the  physician:  "It  is  from  God  the  physician  getteth  wis- 
dom, ....  God  hath  created  medicines  out  of  the  earth"  (Ecclus. 
38:1-5;  cf.  Bevan, /erttj.  «.  ff.  Pr»M/,  67).  Nor  is  the  author  of  Wis- 
dom less  appreciative  of  the  particular  sciences  fostered  in  those  days  by 
the  Greeks— philosophy,  cosmology,  chronology,  astronomy,  zoology, 
and  demonology  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:17-22;  cf.  Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud., 
I,  546). 

But  perhaps  there  is  no  single  fact  that  is  of  greater  evidential  value 
for  our  own  discussion  than  this,  that  that  party  which  among  the  Jews 
had  always  to  be  reckoned  with,  in  national  and  religious  affairs,  the 
Sadducees,  was  the  protagonist  for  Hellenic  culture  (Schurer,  Hist. 
Jew.  Peop.,  I,  I,  286-87). 

But  the  influence  of  surrounding  custom  strikes  still  deeper.  It 
affects  the  religious  life  and  religious  forms.  Feasts  went  hand  in  hand 
with  all  public  functions.  Deeorarions  played  a  part  almost  entirely 
foreign  to  the  old  and  sterner  life.  The  temple  itself  is  enwreathed  in 
garlands  on  joyous  occasions  (I  Mace.  4:57;  II  Mace.  10:7;  cf.  Jud. 
15:13;  Wisd.  of  Sol.  2:8).  Music  adds  to  the  enliveranent  of  these 
feasts.  Plato  had  held  that  music  was  one  of  the  liberal  arts.  The 
spirit  of  the  Greeks  is  caught  up  in  Ben  Sirach  (Ecclus.  14:4-6,  lo-ii, 
14-19;  31:28,  31;  32:3-6;  40:20-21;  44:5;  47:9;  cf.  Twelve  Patr., 
T.  Judah  23:2-4).  The  Jewish  temple  service  may  itself  have  been 
enriched  in  its  music  by  a  reflection  from  this  life  (cf.  Ecclus.  50: 11-21). 

But  the  Greek  feasts  were  inseparable  from  the  Greek  religion. 
This,  like  the  customs,  was  all  pervasive.  Not  only  was  circumcision 
denied,  but  the  literal  interpretarion  of  much  of  the  law  was  only  poorly 
observed.  Flesh  of  forbidden  animals  was  eaten.  Not  only  was  the 
ircrao-ot  worn  (II  Mace.  4:12-15),  but  we  find  many  initiated  into 


mmfimmm' 


MiMi 


i8 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GKECIAN  WOKLD 


the  Greek  mysteries  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:4)  and  leam  that  not  only  were 
there  novitiates  (^wtij?),  but  also  those  who  were  full  fledged  (rtXoot; 
cf.  Hatch,  Greek  Iitfl.,  283).  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  synagogue 
now  arose  among  the  Diaspora  as  an  offset  to  these  paganizing  influ- 
ences (Bousset,  Relig.  d.  Jud.,  ji,  197  f.)-  The  movement  toward  a 
spiritual  and  intellectual  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  which  perhaps 
dated  back  earlier  than  the  time  of  Ezra,  would  now  be  accelerated, 
especially  among  the  Diaspora  (Bousset,  Relig.  d.  Jud.,  199).  Perhaps 
what  may  be  the  recognition  of  the  organization  of  the  synagogue  has 
been  preserved  in  the  phrase  "Congregation  of  God"  (5S  "nyiS),  used 
in  one  of  the  Psalms  (Ps.  74:8). 

It  is  thus  readily  seen  that  all  phases  of  Hebrew  life  and  activity 
were  saturated  to  their  very  depths  by  the  thought  of  a  people  whose 
viewpoint  was  the  antipodes  of  their  own.  This  new,  subtle,  and  master- 
ful life  reacted  strongly  on  them.  In  part  they  absorbed  it,  in  part  it 
served  to  bring  out  the  more  clearly  their  own  unique  contributions  to 
the  world-thought.  We  are  now  prepared  to  consider  their  direct 
replies  to  the  various  attacks  which  were  launched  against  them  by  their 
conquerors. 


n 

THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO  THE  VARIOUS  ATTACKS 

That  the  name  Jew  was  generally  opprobrious  is  well  known.  A 
people  so  seclusive,  and  at  the  same  time  so  intolerant  of  any  worship 
other  than  their  own,  and  so  insistent  in  the  annunciation  of  their  own 
faith,  would  of  necessity  be  strongly  opposed  and  greatly  hated  by  the 
nations  among  whom  they  lived.  During  their  contact  with  the  Greeks 
their  experience  was  no  more  favorable  than  it  had  been  among  other 
nations.  In  various  ways,  directly  and  indirectly,  the  Jew  through 
three  centuries  presented  his  apologetic  to  the  criticisms  which  were 
huried  against  him  and  his  religion  (cf .  Kriiger,  Hellenismus  u.  Judentum 
im.  N.T.  Zeilaller,  31-82).  The  charges  and  the  answers  thereto  may 
be  ordered  under  two  heads:  first,  those  relating  to  the  natioq;  second, 
those  which  deal  more  specifically  with  their  religion. 

THE  ATTACKS  ON  THE  NATION 

A  glorious  antiquity  was  considered  to  be  the  passport  into  the 
charmed  circle  of  the  Greek  intellectual  aristocracy.  No  boast  has 
been  more  common  among  people  of  all  races  than  that  of  distinguished 
and  ancient  lineage.  Early  Egypt  boasted  of  an  ancestry  which  was 
lost  in  the  haze  of  far  distant  millennia.  Babylonia,  likewise,  gloried 
in  a  past  which  was  lost  in  antiquity.  The  charge  of  a  brief  and  insig- 
nificant genealogical  record  is  one  which  the  apologists  took  the  greatest 
care  to  remove.  Fragments  from  Demetrius,  who  lived  about  200  B.C., 
Eupolemus,  and  Artapanus,  who  came  a  little  later,  go  to  show  that 
there  were  Jewish  writers  who  were  confident  of  the  antiquity  and  the 
glory  of  their  race  (Euseb.,  Praep.  evang.,  IX,  1-3;  XXI,  18;  Clement, 
Str.,  I,  »3,  153). 

Apollonius  of  Molon  carefully  constructed  a  chronology,  showmg 
the  antiquity  of  his  people.  Josephus  is,  however,  the  chief  advocate 
of  the  ancient  glory  of  his  nation  against  the  current  attacks.  Though 
beyond  the  scope  of  our  task,  the  contribution  of  Josephus,  though  often 
not  so  accurate  as  we  might  wish,  is  so  direct  and  emphatic  that  we  may 
here  take  it  as  the  organization  of  tendencies  of  which  only  remnants 
have  been  preserved  to  us  outside  of  his  work.  He  arranged  his  books 
after  the  order  of  Greek  historians,  and,  influenced  further  by  them,  he 

ip 


i^ 


ta^M^^i^mMMhtmmAtmtiam 


*~^i 


^^^^^ggjgj^^,^^ 


■liliii 


JO  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GKECIAN  WOEtO 

gave  as  a  title  to  his  first  work,  "Twenty  Books  of  Judean  Archaeology." 
His  claim  is  clearly  outlined  in  Contra  A pion:  "Our  Jewish  nation  is  of 

;  verj'  great  antiquity  and  had  a  distinct  subsistence  of  its  own  originally" 
(Conl.  Ap.,  I,  i).  His  purpose  was  to  provide  a  more  just  opinion  of 
his  nation.  If  they  were  not  well  known,  it  was  because  of  their  inland 
situation,  and  their  quiet  type  of  life.  Further,  their  conduct  of  life 
was  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  thus  they  were  not  mentioned  frequently 
by  historians.  Yet,  he  contends,  the  fact  remains  that  they  were  known 
by  the  outside  nations.  From  the  testimony  of  Manetho  he  quotes: 
"The  forefathers  of  the  Jews  were  delivered  out  of  Egypt  393  years 
before  Danus,  upon  whom  the  Argives  look  as  their  most  ancient  King, 
came  to  Argos"  {Cont.  Ap.,  I,  16).  Thus  he  deduces  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  were  delivered  from  Egypt  almost  one  thousand  years  before  the 
siege  of  Troy  (Cont.  A  p.,  I,  14-16).  Similarly  he  makes  use  of  Syrian 
records,  and  shows  that  the  splendid  temple  of  Solomon  was  built  143 
years  before  the  Syrians  founded  Carthage  (Cont.  A  p.,  \,  17).  Menander 
the  Ephesian  is  quoted  to  corroborate  the  same  fact  (Cord.  Ap.,  I,  18). 
Josephus  seems  to  have  done  a  thorough  piece  of  research  work  in  his- 
tory, for  he  gives  us  a  list  of  some  eighteen  writers  who  bear  witness  to" 
the  antiquity  of  the  Jews.  Later  Philo  meets  in  the  same  way  similar 
and  other  attacks  in  his  pamphlet.  Quod  Deus  sit  immuiabilis. 

There  was,  however,  to  be  met  no  more  persbtent  attack  against 
the  Jews  than  that  they  were  a  leprous  slave  people  who  lacked  all 
semblance  of  culture.  Manetho,  the  Egyptian  priest,  (circa  250  B.C.) 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  chronicler  of  the  tradition  that  the  Jews 
were  a  nation  of  slaves,  who  were  leprous  and  impure,  and  that  thus 
they  were  driven  out  of  Egypt  and  sold  to  the  mines  east  of  the  Nile 
(Cont.  Ap.,  1,  14-16,  26-27).  Lysimachus  of  the  first  century  B.C. 
repeats  the  story  in  part,  making  to  it  a  new  contribution.  Not  only 
were  they  leprous  and  scabby,  but  they  obtained  their  food  by  begging, 
and  under  the  leadership  of  Moses  they  were  regardless  of  proprieties, 
and  delighted  to  overturn  altars.  Because  of  such  actions,  by  the  com- 
mand of  Bochoris  they  were  all  drowned  (Conl.  Ap.,  I,  34-35;  II,  2,  14). 
Chaeremon,  another  Egyptian  priest,  who  was  also  a  Stoic  philosopher, 
repeated  in  general  the  story  of  Manetho  (Conl.  A  p.,  I,  32-33).  Then 
Apion,  a  contemporary  of  Josephus,  in  his  work  Aiyu^ruuio,  repeats  the 
slanders  of  the  earlier  historians  (Cont.  Ap.,  H,  1-3).  The  same  attitude 
is  preserved  by  all  the  Greek  historians,  who  in  their  writings  treat  at 

■  all  of  the  Jewish  people  (Schiirer,  Hist.  Jew.  Peop.,  II,  3,  261  ff.).  Even 
Tacitus  in  his  writings  gives  a  similar  account  of  Jewish  history  (Hist. 
V.  22  ff.). 


'^ 


1 


THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO  VARIOUS  ATTACKS  21 

Indirect  replies  to  such  an  attitude  as  that  represented  in  the  above 
were  many.  The  early  days  and  the  great  names  of  the  nations  past 
were  glorified  in  much  of  the  current  literature.  The  Israelitish  indi-  ' 
vidual  or  nation  is  held  up  as  an  illustrious  example  of  right  conduct 
and  heroic  action,  or  as  the  recipient  of  astonishing  divine  favors  in  such 
books  as  Tobit,  Sibylline  Oracles,  Jubilees,  Patriarchs,  Daniel,  Esther, 
Maccabees,  the  lost  work  of  Jason  of  Cyrene,  Judith,  and  Josephus.  In 
many  of  these,  as  will  be  seen  later,  the  characteristic  which  is  idealized 
is  Grecian  rather  than  Jewish.  All  these  writers  show  the  nation  as  • 
possessing  the  same  high-bom  culture  as  other  nations.  Their  leaders 
in  great  achievement  and  in  breadth  of  intellectual  outlook  were  in  the 
van  of  the  world's  great  leaders.  Frequently  the  immorality  and 
grossness  of  the  Patriarchs  were  omitted  in  the  rewriting  of  history  (cf. 
Twelve  Patriarchs).  Always  the  picture  was  gilded  and  frequently  the 
telling  touches  were  borrowed  from  Greek  ideals.  This  literature  had 
not  only  as  iU  object  the  comfort  of  the  Hebrews,  but  it  also  sought  to 
inspire  a  respect  for  the  Jewish  people  and  their  religion,  and  it  thus 
forms  a  very  substantial  background  for  the  more  direct  polemic. 

An  anonymous  writer,  from  whom  a  fragment  has  been  preserved 
in  Eusebius,  traces  the  genealogy  of  Abraham  back  to  the  giants, 
asserts  that  he  taught  the  Phoenicians  concerning  the  sun  and  the  moon, 
and  then,  going  to  Egypt,  taught  the  priests  of  Heliopolis  in  matters  of 
astrology  and  other  learning  (Praep.  evang.,  IX,  17-18).  The  father  of 
the  faithful  thus  was  made  to  stand  out  as  the  man  of  greatest  culture 
in  the  eariy  days.  Kleodomus,  whom  Polyhistor  accredits  with  writing 
a  history,  gives  him  yet  greater  glory,  and  links  him  up  with  current 
Greek  legends  (Jos.,  Ant.,  I,  xv).  John  Hyrcanus  is  reported  to  have 
written  a  history  of  his  people  along  much  the  same  lines.  Polyhistor 
refers  also  to  the  apologetic  of  the  same  type  by  Aristeas,  Theodotus, 
Molon,  and  Ezekiel.  These  have  been  preserved  to  us  in  part  by  Euse- 
bius (Praep.  evang.,  IX,  17-39).  Artapanus  adopts  a  rather  novel 
method  to  prove  his  case.  He  presents  and  supports  the  theory  that 
Moses  of  the  Jews  is  none  other  than  the  Greek  Musaeus  and  the  Egyp- 
tian Hermes.  He  surrounds  the  traditional  lawgiver  with  many  of  the 
accessories  of  Egyptian  legend,  and  thus  endeavors  to  win  for  the  founder 
of  his  nation  a  favorable  consideration  from  the  gentile  worid  (Euseb., 
Praep.  evang.,  IX,  27).  Aristobulus  asserts  that  Pythagoras,  Socrates, 
and  Plato  derived  their  doctrines  from  Moses,  in  fact,  the  peripatetic 
philosophy  was  dependent  on  him  (Euseb.,  Praep.  evang.,  XIIl,  12,  i; 
Clement,  Str.,  V,  14,  97).    The  pseudepigraphists  exalt  a  number  of  their 


^fff" 


^WB»l^>W"^ 


^imnfiw 


„>^ 


33  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGEnC  TO  THE  GKEdAN  WORLD 

great  historical  characters,  as  Daniel,  Solomon,  Jeremiah,  Josiah,  Baruch, 
to  the  pinnacle  of  human  perfection. 

Josephus  here  again  proves  to  be  the  systematic  defender  of  his 
people.  As  already  indicated,  his  history  from  the  indirect  standpoint 
was  a  most  telling  apologetic.  The  prowess  and  the  virtue  of  his 
ancestry  were  here  celebrated.  The  men  of  the  past  and  their  deeds 
were  idealized.  With  the  passing  of  the  centuries  and  their  accumulat- 
ing traditions,  under  the  glowing  patriotism  of  the  historian,  the  human 
weaknesses  of  the  actors  were  forgotten,  their  heroism  stood  out  more 
prominently,  statistics  representing  national  strength  were  increased  by 
thousands,  late  conceptions  were  represented  as  having  obtained  from 
the  beginning,  and  the  whole  history  of  the  people,  as  it  was  rewritten, 
was  intended  to  impress  the  mind  of  the  gentile  reader.  But  Josephus 
put  all  his  strength  into  a  direct  defense  against  various  definite  accusa- 
tions. He  cited  the  then  well-known  facts,  that  in  recent  years  the 
Jews  had  been  considered  worthy  of  special  favors  at  the  hands  of 
their  rulers.  Alexander  the  Great  had  given  them  possession  of  their 
own  country,  and  had  bestowed  on  them  the  same  freedoms  and  immuni- 
ties as  on  the  Macedonians  themselves.  The  Jews  in  the  various  cities 
in  which  they  lived  were  permitted,  by  special  statute,  to  be  called  by 
the  name  of  that  city,  as  Alexandrians,  Ephesians,  etc.  Quoting  from 
Hecataeus,  he  shows  that  "Alexander  honored  the  Jews  to  such  a  degree, 
that,  for  the  equity  and  fidelity,  which  they  gave  proof  of,  he  permitted 
them  to  hold  the  country  of  Samaria  free  from  tribute."  Ptolemy 
Lagus  was  so  confident  of  their  loyalty  and  valor  that  he  intrusted  to 
their  care  the  fortresses  of  Egypt  and  colonized  Cyrene  and  other  cities 
of  Lybia  with  these  people.  Ptolemy  Philadclphus  not  only  freed  the 
nation,  but  removed  certain  duties  from  them,  and  further  was  so  con- 
vinced as  to  the  value  of  their  Scriptures  as  to  require  a  translation  of 
them.  Ptolemy  Euergetes  showed  his  belief  in  the  power  of  the  God  of 
the  Jews  by  sacrificing  in  Jerusalem  according  to  their  laws  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  victory  over  all  Syria.  Philometer  and  Cleopatra  so  recog- 
nized their  efficiency  as  to  give  the  whole  charge  of  the  government  to 
Onias  and  Doritheus,  who  were  both  Jews.  These  men  saved  the 
Egyptian  nation  from  the  hands  of  revolters.  Later,  when  Ptolemy 
Physcon  planned  to  destroy  many  Jews  of  Alexandria  by  a  band  of 
elephants,  the  divine  approval  of  the  oppressed  people  was  manifested 
when  the  enraged  beasts  wreaked  vengeance  on  Jhe  servants  of  the 
tyrant.  Last  of  all,  Julius  Caesar,  in  his  epistles,  bore  testimony  to  the 
virtue  of  the  Jewish  nation  (CotU.  Ap.,  II,  4-5). 


■  Ml  xm^mmsm 


Pl'WP' 


i#fTi«^8ifiiHii     I 


THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO  VARIOUS  ATTACKS 


»3 


Beyond  this,  however,  Josephus  moves  back  into  history  and  asserts 
the  greatness  of  certain  individuals  of  his  nation.  That  among  his  own 
people  there  should  be  men  of  culture  he  held  was  most  natural.  As  a 
race  they  were  not  given  to  war  or  robbery.  They  were  not  a  maritime 
people,  so  their  attention  was  taken  up  with  their  home  affairs.  The 
education  of  their  children  was  thus  their  chief  care,  and  they  thought 
the  true  business  of  life  was  the  observance  of  the  rules  of  piety  {Cont. 
Ap.,  I,  is). 

The  outside  world  had  learned  much  from  his  ancestors.  The 
philosophy  of  Diogenes  had  been  borrowed  from  the  Jews  (Cont.  A  p., 
I,  22).  It  had  been  stated  by  Hermippus  that  Pythagoras  had  imitated 
the  Jewish  doctrines  and  had  incorporated  many  of  their  laws  in  his 
philosophy  (jCotU.  Ap.,  I,  22).  Tyre  also,  it  was  stated  by  Theophrastus, 
had  laws  such  as  prohibition  against  swearing  foreign  oaths,  etc.,  which 
were  found  only  among  the  Jews  and  hence  borrowed  {Conl.  Ap.,  I,  22). 
The  work  and  significance  of  Moses,  which  had  been  attacked  by  Apol- 
lonius  of  Molon,  Lysimachus,  and  Apion,  was  stoutly  defended  by 
Josephus.  He  was  the  most  ancient  of  all  lawgivers,  and  at  the  same 
time  his  laws  were  the  best.  He  claimed  that  the  earliest  Grecian  phi- 
losophers had  followed  the  Jewish  legislator.  Plato  had  imitated  Moses 
chiefly  in  this  point  that  everyone  should  learn  the  laws  accurately.  In 
fact,  even  "  as  God  himself  pervades  all  the  world,  so  hath  our  law  passed 
throughout  all  the  worid  also"  {Cont.  Ap.,  II,  13,  15,  37,  40).  He  seeks 
to  prove  from  Dius  the  Phoenician  historian  that  Solomon  was  wiser 
than  Hiram  of  Tyre  {Cont.  Ap.,  I,  17}.  In  order  to  refute  the  strictures 
of  the  enemies  of  his  nation,  he  not  only  deals  in  assertions  and  quotes 
various  historians,  but  by  pitting  one  accusation  against  another  he 
reduces  the  whole  to  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  {Cont.  Ap.,  I,  28-31).  Only 
one  instance  of  this  is  required  to  show  the  method  of  his  argument,  viz., 
inasmuch  as  Moses  introduced  a  very  strict  law  concerning  leprosy  and 
its  treatment,  these  people  could  not  be  a  nation  of  lepers.  The  whole 
tendency  in  the  treatise  Contra  Apion  is  to  show  that  the  Jewish  nation 
either  originated  or  laid  special  emphasis  on  those  things  which  were 
generally  considered  to  be  Greek.  In  many  ways  the  same  spirit  is  seen, 
though  it  is  not  so  systematically  set  forth,  in  the  writings  of  Philo. 
Thus  in  the  interbiblical  period  there  was  a  great  deal  of  Jewish  literature 
which  was  written  for  gentile  eyes,  having  the  express  purpose  of  raising 
the  nation  of  the  authors  in  the  general  esteem  of  the  pagan  world. 

The  challenge  of  the  opponents  of  Judaism  went  even  deeper  than 
that  of  the  lack  of  culture.    They  branded  them  as  "fellow-haters" 


'"IPWWPW»W*P"^"*^ 


iiAMa*^ii*iaMMM 


34  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  CKECIAN  WORLD 

(iiuila,  Jos.,  Conl.  Ap.,  II,  II,  29,  37)-  In  that  age  of  cosmopolitan- 
ism such  a  fault  was  a  crime.  Under  the  influence  of  Stoicism,  the 
dominant  note  of  the  cultured  community  was  social  and  philanthropic 
(Zeller,  Slcics,  295-96).  Along  with  this  went  the  kindred  charge  that 
they  were  thoroughly  bad  citizens  and  not  infrequently  proved  disloyal 
to  their  lords.  They  were  accused  of  taking  an  oath  "  to  bear  no  good 
will  to  any  foreigners,  and  particularly  to  none  of  the  Greeks"  (Cont. 
Ap.,  II,  ii).  It  was  considered  conclusive  that  inasmuch  as  they  did 
not  worship  the  same  gods  as  the  Alexandrians,  they  were  therefore  the 
authors  of  sedition  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  6).  Because  the  Jews  would  not 
worship  the  king  they  were  constantly  pilloried  by  the  Gentiles. 

It  was  necessary  for  the  apologists  to  admit  that  their  nation  was 
somewhat  exclusive.  Josephus  maintained,  however,  that,  on  the  one 
hand,  this  was  the  common  practice  of  all  nations  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  37). 
On  the  other  hand,  he  asserted  that  the  lawgiver  of  Israel  "does  not 
show  any  envious  mind  toward  those  who  cultivate  a  friendship  with 
us"  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  29).  It  was  ordained  that  even  enemies  should  be 
treated  with  moderation  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  30),  and  that  those  who  desired 
to  partake  of  Jewish  institutions  should  be  freely  admitted,  thereto 
(Cont.  Ap.,  II,  37).  On  the  whole,  it  is  concluded  that  the  Jew  had  not 
been  narrower  in  his  sympathies  than  those  of  other  nations.  Beyond 
this,  these  people  had  been  found  possessing  that  most  excellent  quality 
of  faithfulness  to  their  own  laws,  in  a  degree  not  surpassed  by  any  other 
nation.  Not  only  are  their  observance  of  specific  laws,  as  those  per- 
Uining  to  the  Sabbath,  images,  foods,  etc.,  referred  to  in  much  of  their 
literature,  as  Tobit,  Daniel,  Esther,  II  Maccabees,  Judith,  etc.,  but 
Josephus  concludes  the  whole  matter  by  such  a  sweeping  declaration 
as:  "No  one  can  tell  of  more  than  one  or  two  that  have  betrayed  our 
laws,  even  on  fear  of  death"  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  38;  I,  22;  II,  31;  Jos., 
Ant.,  XVI,  ii,  4;  XVI,  vi,  2). 

These  writers  are  at  considerable  pains  to  establish  their  loyalty. 
The  above-mentioned  favors  granted  by  kings  are  appealed  to.  The 
various  good  offices  of  the  Jews  are  recited.  The  sacrifice  offered  in 
Jerusalem  for  the  monarch  is  emphasized  (cf.  I  Mace.  7:33;  II  Mace. 
3:32;  Ezra  6:10).  Their  peculiar  religious  conceptions  which  opposed 
idolatry  are  elaborated  as  reasons  why  they  should  not  follow  in  the 
easy  ways  of  human  worship  of  other  nations.  All  sides  of  the 
question  are  met  and  answered  especially  by  Josephus  (Conl.  Ap.,  II, 
6-38). 


■I'WiWi.Lli 


THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO  VARIOUS  ATTACKS 


»S 


THE  ATTACKS  ON  THEIR  RELIGION 

The  religious  ideas  and  attitude  of  the  Hebrews  are,  however, 
equally  a  point  of  attack  by  the  Hellenists.  The  ritual  is  both  grossly 
misunderstood  and  scathingly  censured.  Food  laws  presented  an 
excellent  target  for  the  critics.  Abhorrence  of  swine's  flesh  was  one  of 
the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  true  Jew.  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
did  his  best  to  override  the  prejudices  of  the  people  in  thb  respect 
(I  Mace.  1:47;  2:16).  The  same  attitude  of  opposition  on  the  part 
of  the  Greeks  to  this  taboo  is  found  down  to  the  end  of  our  period  (Jos., 
Jew.  Wars,  VII,  81;  Cont.  Ap.,  II,  14)- 

Circumcision  likewise  meets  with  the  derision  of  the  more  cultured 
nation  Qoi.,  Cont.  Ap.,  II,  13;  Horace  Sat.  i.  9-  69;  Juvenal  Sat. 
xiv.  105-*;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  4).  The  attitude  of  the  young  Jew  to  this 
sign  of  his  race  indicates  how  strong  the  feeling  had  grown. 

The  Sabbath  was  another  of  their  distinctive  regulations  which  met 
with  general  ridicule  on  the  part  of  their  enemies.  On  more  than  one 
occasion  their  reverence  for  the  letter  of  the  law  cost  them  the  lives  of 
many  of  their  fellows  (cf.  I  Mace.  2:34;  9  =  34;  Jo*-.  '4«'-.  XIV,  iv,  3; 
II  Mace.  5:24,  25;  6:6;  8:26;  12:38).  No  more  scandalous  attack 
was  made  against  this  religious  function  than  that  in  which  Apion 
attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  observance.  He  relates  it  to  Sab- 
batosis,  which  he  asserts  was  the  name  of  the  Egyptian  remedy  for  the 
buboes  in  the  groin,  from  which  the  Jews  suffered  after  six  days'  travel- 
ing from  Egypt  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  2). 

There  were,  however,  some  very  wild  misrepresentations  of  their 
ritual  afloat  through  the  country.  Two  of  the  most  notorious  were  the 
following.  Apion  transmitted  the  story  of  earlier  tradiUonalists  that 
in  the  holy  place  of  the  Jews,  there  was  a  golden  head  of  an  ass,  of 
immense  value,  and  that  they  worshiped  this  head  as  deity.  The 
other  most  unfounded  criticism  is  also  chronicled  most  fully  by  Apion. 
The  story  is  as  follows:  "Antiochus  found,  upon  entering  the  temple,  a 
man  lying  upon  a  bed,  with  a  table  before  him,  set  out  in  all  the  deli- 
cacies that  either  sea  or  land  could  afford The  King  bade  him 

speak  freely The  man  then  burst  into  tears  and  proceeded  to 

answer:   I  am  a  Greek  ....  and  was  taken  up  by  some  foreigners, 
brought  to  this  place,  and  shut  up  with  posiUve  orders  not  to  suffer 

mortal  to  approach  me They  gave  me  to  understand  that  the 

Jews  had  a  custom  among  them,  once  a  year,  upon  a  certain  day  pre- 
fixed, to  seize  upon  a  Grecian  stranger  and,  when  they  had  kept  him 


'fippsi'fWif* 


■v 


WT" 


36 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKU> 


fattening  one  whole  year,  to  take  him  into  a  wood,  and  offer  him  up  as 
a  sacrifice,  according  to  their  own  form,  taking  a  taste  of  his  blood, 
with  a  horrid  oath  to  live  and  die  sworn  enemies  to  the  Greeks"  (Coni. 
Ap.,  U,  8). 

To  these  accusations  two  lines  of  defense  were  instituted:  The  one 
was  that  many  of  these  calumnies  were  preposterous  on  the  face  of  them. 
None  of  the  prosel>'tes  from  other  nations  were  aware  of  these  atrocities, 
and  they  were  contrary  to  the  whole  genius  of  the  Jewish  religion  (Cont. 
^P;  Hi  9~")-  The  other  method  of  meeting  the  situation  was  a  defense 
of  the  validity  of  such  restrictions.  The  Eg>'ptian  priests  were  quoted 
as  both  abstaining  from  swine's  food  and  practicing  circumcision  (Cont. 
Ap.,  II,  14).  An  early  WTiter  had  drawn  sufficiently  on  his  imagination 
to  assure  his  readers  that  though  the  heathen  scoffed  at  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  the  very  angels  themselves  had  been  so  created  Qub. 
15:26,  27,  14).  A  similar  apologetic  is  made  by  the  sanie  writer  for 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  (Jub.  2:18-19,  2,  31).  Other  nations, 
likewise,  it  was  held  by  Josephus,  had  their  exclusive  regulations,  and, 
on  the  whole,  the  constancy  of  the  Jew  to  the  laws  of  his  fathers  was 
commendatory  (Cont.  Ap.,l,S,  21;  II,  38). 

Aristobulus  was  a  thoroughgoing  Pythagorean  when  he  explained 
the  origin  of  the  Sabbath,  not  from  the  idea  that  God  rested— the 
Divine  Being  never  needed  rest — but  from  the  consideration  that  this 
was  doing  honor  to  the  number  7  (Zeller,  Die.  Or.,  Ill,  2,  264). 

The  charge  of  atheism  is  also  laid  at  their  door  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  22, 
36).  This  was  in  large  measure  due  to  the  fact  that  they  did  not  wor- 
ship the  gods  of  other  nations,  nor  give  to  men  that  homage  which  was 
due  to  God  only,  nor  would  they  bow  down  before  images.  Their 
most  acceptable  apologetic  was  the  able  statement  of  monotheism  made 
by  Josephus  in  Cont.  Ap.,  II.  16,  23;  cf.  Aristeas  16. 

The  attack  upon  their  worship  was  fundamentally  an  attack  on 
their  Scriptures.  Josephus,  here  again,  makes  the  earliest  formal 
defense  of  their  Scriptures.  To  prove  the  veracity  of  the  Jewish  Scrip-  ■ 
tures  in  matters  of  histor>',  he  calls  to  his  aid  the  testimony  of  many 
of  the  world-historians:  Manetho,  Menander,  Berosus,  Megasthenes, 
PhilostratuS,  Dius  the  Phoenician,  el  al.  (Cont.  Ap.,  I,  14-21).  After 
various  proofs  he  concludes  that  the  records  of  the  Jews  are  of 
all  the  most  accurate.  They  carry  down  the  story  of  the  world  from 
the  creation  to  his  own  time,  and  are  free  from  any  disagreement  (CotU. 
Ap.,  II,  6-8).  Priests  had  been  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  making 
and  preserving  the  records  from  the  beginning.    This  duty,  because 


«Mi« 


THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO  VARIOUS  ATTACKS 


»7 


of  the  great  care  of  the  system  and  the  high  character  of  the  priests,  had 
been  performed  most  adequately  (Cont.  A  p.,  II,  7).  The  character 
of  the  Scripture  had,  on  the  one  hand,  been  attested  by  the  fact  that 
many  Jews  would  rather  lose  their  lives  than  violate  a  single  word 
(Cont.  A  p.,  I,  8,  22).  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  the  proselytes 
were  not  few  (Cont.  Ap.,  II,  i,  11),  and  that  even  a  Greek  king  had 
worshiped  in  Jerusalem  in  accordance  with  the  rites  of  the  temple 
(Cont.  Ap.,  II,  s;  cf.  Aristeas  16,  19,  37;  III  Mace.  3:21;  S'-i^'<  6:24- 
26;  7:6-8)  was  good  evidence  that  they  were  not  less  worthy  than  the 
scriptures  of  other  peoples.  The  somewhat  confident  conclusion  to 
the  whole  matter  is  that  the  laws  of  the  Jew  were  the  best  in  all  history 
as  well  as  the  most  ancient.  In  them  there  was  nothing  which  could  be 
changed  for  the  better;  in  fact  the  law  continues  immortal  (Cont.  Ap., 
II,  18,  22-23,  39). 

Apart  from  the  theoretical  answers  which  were  given  to  the  oppo- 
nents of  Judaism,  there  was  a  movement  which  was  a  most  practical 
apologetic.  The  intense  loyalty  of  numbers  of  the  Jews  to  their  religion, 
together  with  its  spiritual  monotheism,  laid  a  basis  for  a  strong  appeal 
to  the  Greeks.  The  synagogues  throughout  the  land  were  centers  of 
religious  fires  which  must  have  been  felt  by  the  Gentiles.  Though  we 
have  no  way  of  ascertaining  the  strength  of  the  movement  or  the  num- 
ber of  converts,  we  have  good  evidence  that  a  proselytizing  propaganda 
of  considerable  moment  was  carried  on  in  the  closing  centuries  of  Jewish 
national  life  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  1:1;  6:1-9,  21;  Jos.,  Cont.  Ap.,  II,  10,  39; 
Jos.,  Jrw.  Wars,  II,  xx,  2).  No  doubt  there  was  a  substantial  historical 
background  for  the  words,  "They  compassed  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte  "  (Matt.  23 :  15).  This  gives  all  the  more  point  to  such  attacks 
as  that  of  Apion  and  also  suggests  apologetic  and  propagandist  tendencies 
in  much  of  the  literature  of  this  period  (cf.  Bousset,  Relig.  d.  Jud., 
88-99). 

The  duty  now  remains  to  pass  from  the  indirect  and  negative  atti- 
tude of  the  apologetic  to  the  more  positive  note.  The  way  for  this  was 
admirably  prepared  by  the  close  contact  of  the  two  peoples  for  a  couple 
of  centuries  with  the  resultant  absorption  of  the  thought  atmosphere 
of  the  Greeks  by  the  Jews.  Slowly  the  way  had  been  prepared  for 
Hebrew  thought  to  be  cast  in  Hellenic  mold.  With  thb  the  following 
section  will  deaL 


^W"^fl^»W^ 


PW^^^^^^W^ 


'■T'-fl'fl 


in 

A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LITERATURE 

THE  HEBREW  THOUGHT  RESTATED  IN  TERUS  OF  CREaAN  PHILOSOPHY 

In  the  literature  of  this  period  we  are  faced  by  a  readjustment  to 
the  current  movements  of  the  day  in  four  different  though  correlated 
fields  of  thought:  cosmology,  psychology,  ethics,  and  theology.  In 
each  division  we  shall  endeavor  to  state  briefly  the  orthodox  Jewish 
belief  and  the  significant  features  of  the  Greek  philosophies,  and  then 
attempt  to  show  how  one  gradually  in  part  or  in  whole  passed  over  into 
the  other. 

A.      CX>SMOLOGy 

That  there  was  a  broad  chasm  separating  the  old  Hebrew  cosmogony 
from  the  Greek  world-thought  is  easily  recognized.  The  Greek  cos- 
mogonies themselves  were  the  result  of  growth.  Significant  among 
the  early  Greek  philosophies  stands  the  ?ythagorean  movement.  To 
this  school,  number  was  not  only  the  governing  principle,  but  was 
itself  the  essence  of  the  cosmogony.  Other  schook  endeavored  to 
explain  the  universe  from  a  single  principle,  and  that,  to  our  concep- 
tion, a  material  one.  In  thb  material  substance  Heraclitus  found  the 
warring  of  opposites,  which  was  the  e.xplanation  of  all  phenomena.  His 
system,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  considers  the  Logos  or  the  cosmical 
reason  to  be  identical  with  universal  law,  is  nevertheless  a  refined  pan- 
theistic materialism.  Empedocles  seems  to  have  been  the  first  who 
traced  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  operation  of  a  non-material 
agency.  Anaxagoras,  a  contemporary,  followed  up  this  conception  by 
maintaining  that  row  or  "Reason"  was  the  cause  of  the  first  movement 
by  which  the  world  was  formed.  Here,  mind  and  matter  are  conceived 
as  over  against  each  other.  To  him  »ow  was  a  spiritual  and  not  a 
material  substance.  Thus  the  foundation  for  dualism  was  firmly  laid. 
Plato,  however,  in  his  own  way,  brought  this  opposition  more  clearly 
to  light.  To  him  the  first  cause  was  purely  spiritual.  He  further 
recognized  the  difficulty  of  the  purely  spiritual  acting  on  the  purely 
material.  He  considered  that  this  could  be  accomplished  in  part  only. 
The  material  had  a  certain  resisting  quality  named  necessity  (irayioj), 
which  the  spiritual  was  unable  completely  to  overcome  and  which  was 
the  root  of  evil.    Thus  the  spiritual  in  its  creative  activity  introduced 

>S 


■MittdiiiteiiiwiiiitoH 


_^_    --''-^ili'ir   li  tti'mltiattmiM 


A  REVIEW  or  THE  LITERATURZ 


»9 


into  the  material  only  "as  many  proportions  as  it  was  possible  for  it 
to  receive"  {Tim.  69B).  The  corollary  of  this  is  his  world  of  ideas.  In 
it  there  are  two  divisions,  which  are  designated  the  body  and  the  soul. 
The  body,  which  was  composed  of  the  four  elements,  was  controlled  by 
mathematical  forms  and  numbers  {Tim.  53B).  The  soul  was  highly 
metaphysical,  possessing  the  attributes  of  motion  and  intelligence. 
This  universe,  body  and  soul  together,  the  archetypal  world,  was  "the 
image  of  the  Creator,  the  only  begotten"  (Tim.  92C),  and  it  governed 
the  natural  and  the  known  world.  The  cosmical  soul  (row  or  Aoy«), 
was  the  nexus  between  these  two  worlds.  This  relation  between  the 
two  and  the  method  of  maintaining  that  relation  is  nowhere  worked  out 
completely.  We  have,  however,  in  this  the  systematic  attempt  to 
explain  the  world  on  a  dualistic  principle.  Later  the  neo-PIatonist« 
contended  that  the  ultimate  source  of  being  was  a  real  unity  which 
transcended  both  matter  and  spirit. 

The  Stoics  who  carried  forward  the  germinal  ideas  of  earlier  teachers 
exercised  considerable  influence  on  Hebrew  thought  from  another 
viewpoint.  To  them  the  primary  substance,  called  spirit  (mmita)  or 
air  (atdiip),  was  matter  and  force  in  one.  The  mode  of  creative  activity 
was  inward  pressure.  Under  this  principle,  called  by  them  the  seminal 
logos,  which  was  none  other  than  God  himself,  they  held  that  there  was 
an  upward  movement  toward  the  lighter  and  more  active  substance 
which  becomes  force,  and  a  downward  movement  toward  the  more 
solid  substance  which  becomes  more  and  more  passive  and  most  truly 
matter.  The  universe  thus  was  a  rational  evolution,  of  which  process 
man  was  the  highest  expression.  Explaining  the  universe  as  they  did 
from  the  material  principle,  they  were  materialistic  pantheists. 

The  Hebrew  people,  on  the  other  hand,  were  never  interested  in ' 
cosmogony  per  se.  It  was  only  as  the  God-idea  affected  it  that  it  received 
any  consideration  at  their  hands.  As  a  rule,  they  accepted  without  ^ 
question  the  general  conceptions  of  their  neighbors  and  kinsmen.  In 
their  earliest  writings  their  statements  are  very  incomplete  and  some- 
what naive.  To  them  things  were  as  they  seemed.  The  general  Semitic 
idea  of  a  flat  earth,  with  waters  above  and  waters  below,  was  accepted. 
Creation  had  been  by  a  divine  fiat  from  a  God  outside  of  the  world, 
which,  once  formed,  remained  static 

Later  in  the  Old  Testament  there  seem  to  be  advance  movements. 
In  the  P  creation  story  (Gen.  i :  1-2,  4a)  much  attention,  after  the  man- 
ner of  this  school,  is  given  to  the  orderly  progress  in  the  work  of  creation. 
It  is  fitted  into  a  perfect  number  scheme  and  man  is  the  culmination  of 


mfmm^^'m 


i^iM^dii^HMUta 


30 


TEE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKLD 


the  whole  process.  While  in  this  story  the  conflict  between  God  (D'tlbs) 
and  the  void  (DinP)  is  preserved  by  only  the  most  tenuous  suggestions, 
there  is  nothing  which  denies  the  dualism  which  underlay  the  Babylonian 
mythology.  In  view  of  what  Semitic  cosmogony  was  and  the  part 
which  astral  worship  played,  "The  greater  light  to  rule  the  day  and  the 
lesser  light  to  rule  the  night"  (Gen.  1:16),  might  easily  have  become 
the  basis  for  a  type  of  dualism.  A  contemporary  perhaps  of  P,  who 
has  presented  the  most  far-reaching  view  of  monotheism  in  the  Old 
Testament,  may  have  met  this,  or  if  not  this  then  a  similar  danger,  in 
this  memorable  phrase,  "I  form  light  and  create  darkness"  (Isa.  45:7). 

Prov.  8: 22-31  (cf .  3 :  19-20)  is  a  product  of  the  idea  of  the  transcend- 
ence of  God  which  reached  its  most  adequate  expression  in  Deutero- 
Isaiah.  Not  only  is  it  more  poetic  than  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
but  the  conception  of  wisdom  (m32H)  being  with  God  from  the  begin- 
ning, before  the  creation  of  the  cosmos,  as  a  master-workman  or  nurseling 
(^faS),  is  a  decided  step  toward  cosmological  ideas  which  were  prevalent 
in  the  Greek  World.'  That  the  writer  of  this  section  of  the  Book  of 
Proverbs  was  directly  influenced  by  outside  thought  movements  it  is 
not  possible  to  assert  with  certainty.  With  the  development  of  the  idea 
of  the  transcendence  and  the  spirituality  of  Deity,  the  Hebrews  them- 
selves, though  not  given  much  to  philosophic  thought,  must  have  felt 
the  need  of  some  intermediary  between  God  and  the  world.  In  the 
canonical  books  we  have  one  other  glimpse  where  beings  of  divine  or 
semi-divine  origin  are  represented  as  present  at  and  sympathetic  with 
the  work  of  creation  Qob  38:4-7).  Apart  from  these  few  evidences — 
and  even  these  may  have  been  influenced  by'  Greece — we  have  no 
further  indications  of  cosmological  ideas  of  the  Hebrews  which  would 
correspond  to  the  general  outlook  of  the  Greek  world. 

As  the  intellectual  interest  of  the  Jews  was  only  incidentally  turned 
toward  cosmological  problems,  the  Grecian  influence  here  may  briefly 
be  summed  up.  No  doubt  the  comprehensiveness  of  the  Greek  view- 
point contributed  to  make  the  Jewrish  statement  of  the  universe  more 
orderly  and  systematic  than  it  had  hitherto  been.  Under  this  interest, 
apparently,  the  story  of  the  creation  b  thoroughly  elaborated  in  the 
Secrets  of  Enoch  (En.,  chaps.  25-30).  While  the  Qoloring  of  the  con- 
ceptions of  heaven  is  largely  influenced  by  Persia,  the  need  of  these 
days  resulted  in  many  systematic  attempts  clearly  to  present  the  hypo- 
thetical future  world  for  the  encouragement  of  the  present  sufferers. 

» WTiile  "  master-workman  '*  is  the  translation  favored  in  general  by  the  older 
lexicographers  and  commentators,  with  a  good  c'eal  of  justiBcation  Gunkel  {Schdpf. 
u.  Chaos,  94),  Toy  (l.C.C,  in  loc).  Buhl  (Lexicon),  and  others  translate  it  "  nurseling." 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATtHtX 


31 


Well-ordered  presentations  of  the  future  world  are  found  in  Enoch 
(En.,  chap.  22),  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (T.  Levi  2 : 7 — 3 :  10),  the  Book  of 
Jubilees  (Jub.  4:21;  32:21-25),  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah  (Asc.  Isa., 
chaps.  7-10),  and  the  Secrets  of  Enoch  (Slav.  En.,  chaps.  3-22).  Hades 
is  arranged  in  four  divisions,  and  each  division  is  peopled  under  the 
principle  of  moral  distinctions  (En.,  chap.  22).  Similarly  there  are 
provisions  made  for  orderly  grading  in  the  seven  heavens  (Slav.  En., 
chaps.  7-17). 

To  express  the  idea  of  a  well-ordered  whole,  we  find  more  than  one  ' 
of  their  writers  using  certain  time-honored  philosophical  expressions 
of  the  Greeks.  Kosmos  («o<r/io«,  used  for  "world"  first  by  Pythagoras; 
cf.  Hatch,  Greek  Infl.,  209)  and  the  words  from  the  same  root  have 
found  their  way  into  the  LXX  (Dt.  4:19;  17:3;  Isa.  24:21;  40:26, 
etal.).  Here  it  is  used  for  the  Hebrew  SOX ,  and  may  only  very  indirectly 
reflect  the  Greek  idea  of  harmony  and  unity.  In  the  Prayer  of  Manassdi 
we  find  the  word  again  with  perhaps  no  deeper  significance  (<rJ»  rim 
T<u  KoafLiS  avriv.  Prayer  of  Man.,  vs.  2).  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  uses 
it  in  a  comprehensive  sense:  "for  the  world  is  a  fighter  on  behalf  of  the 
righteous"  {iiripitaxot  yap  o  Koapm  lirrl  &ic<uVi>i',  Wisd.  of  Sol.  16:17;  cf. 
7:17).  Likewise  &oti«I,  which  was  a  common  expression  on  the  lips 
of  the  Stoics  for  the  correct  ordering  of  the  world  (e.g.,  Chrysippus 
in  Plutarch,  Plac.  Phil.  i.  28;  Diogenes,  Laert.  vii.  133;  Epictet.,  Diss. 
Ill,  15,  14;  and  frequently  in  Philo  and  Josephus),  is  regularly  used 
in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  emphasis 
on  the  orderly  arrangement  of  the  whole  is  clearly  expressed  in  "And 
sweetly  doth  she  order  all  things"  («<u  &o>xu  ri  iroKra  xpi)<rn>t,  Wisd. 
of  Sol.  8:  i).  The  same  is  true  of  "And  orderest  us  with  great  favor" 
(xat/icrairaAA^  ^u$avt&aiMi<iJ/uc,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  12:18;  cf.i5:i).  Pytha- 
gorean and  Stoic  terminology  mingle  in  "  But  she  hath  ordered  all  things 
in  measure  and  number  and  weight"  (iXXa  iraiTii  liirpif  xat  ipiBp^  ni 
(TTaSiuf  iiiraiat,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  11:20;  cf.  Twelve  Patr.  T.  Naph.  2:3; 
En.  43:2).  Again,  we  find  two  very  common  philosophic  terms  to 
describe  the  process  of  creation,  "She  passeth  through  and  goeth 
through  all  things  by  reason  of  her  pureness"  {Sn^a  SJ  koI  x'tpit  Sti 
irovT<i)»  Sia  T^v  KaSaporrfra,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:24;  cf.  Plutarch,  Plac.  Phil.  i. 
8,  17). 

An  interesting  piece  of  apologetic,  which  is  at  least  indirectly  related 
to  the  Hebrew  cosmogony,  is  the  book  of  "celestial  physics"  in  Enoch 
(chaps.  72-82).  The  aim  of  the  writer  seems  to  have  been  to  prove 
the  validity  of  the  Jewish  calendar,  particularly  in  opposition  to  that  of 


"^i^fmmr^^^m^^^m 


T 


l|MjJUll}J!i|ippijll 


32 


THE  JEWISB  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GKECIAN  WORU> 


the  Greeks.  He  asserts  that  the  moon  is  the  infallible  divider  of  time, 
bringing  "  in  all  the  years  exactly,  so  that  their  position  is  not  prematurely 
advanced  or  delayed  by  a  single  day  unto  eternity"  (En.  74: 12).'  His 
lunar  year  of  three  hundred  and  si.xty-four  days  (7X52)  he  makes  agree 
with  the  solar  year  by  the  insertion  of  intercalary  days  in  the  third, 
fifth,  and  eighth  years  (En.  74:13-16).  He  gives  us  reason  to  believe 
that  not  only  had  he  before  him  the  eight-year  cycle  of  the  Greek 
calendar,  but  that  his  special  point  of  attack  was  the  calendar  of  365! 
days  which  was  then  in  vogue  (En.  74:13-17;  cf.  Slav.  En.  68:1-3). 
He  contended  that  the  Greek  calendar  of  365}  days  caused  much  con- 
fusion because,  by  the  very  necessity  of  the  case,  feast  days  yearly 
changed  from  one  day  of  the  week  to  another  (En.  82:5-9).  While 
the  system  presented  was  less  perfect  than  those  which  were  opposed, 
being  built  up  on  the  phases  of  the  moon,  it  was  essentially  Jewish. 
However,  in  his  effort  to  win  the  day  for  a  phase  of  thought  which  was 
Semitic,  he  used  as  his  instruments  of  defense  a  semi-scientific  elabora- 
tion of  the  methods  and  principles  of  the  Pythagoreans.  The  opposite 
side  of  this  contention  is  taken  up  by  the  author  of  Jubilees.  He  over- 
rides the  lunar  month  and  accepts  that  of  the  Greeks,  viz.,  thirty  days, 
and  the  solar  year  of  twelve  months,  adding  a  number  of  intercalary 
days  to  make  the  year  365{  days  (cf.  Jub.  4:17;  5:27;  6:29-30;  12:16, 
27;  16:11-13;  25:16).  The  fact  that  one  who  was  a  polemicist  for 
Judaism  should  thus  defend  and  appropriate  a  Greek  institution  shows 
how  completely  Greek  influence  was  permeating  Jewish  thinking. 

That  under  the  tutelage  of  the  Greeks  some  of  the  Hebrews  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  creation  of  the  world  the  Creator  acted 
upon  matter  which  was  a  passive  substance  is  quite  apparent.  It  b 
true  that  the  more  Jewish  idea  of  creation  out  of  nothing  {t(  ov<c  iyrar) 
is  emphasized  by  the  authors  of  II  Maccabees  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  (U  Mace.  7:28;  Apoc.  Bar.  21:4;  48:8).  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  uses  the  most  significant 
phrases  of  the  dualists.  He  holds  that  the  world  («o<r/«os)  was  made 
from  formless  matter  (ii  ttfufx^w '  vXi;«,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  11:17).  Both 
of  these  words  are  used  in  a  technical  sense  by  the  Platonists  (Diog. 
Laert.  iii.  41;  vii.  134;  Plato,  Tim.  siA;  cf.  Wace,  Comm„  in  loc.).    In 

■  Charles  by  a  change  of  text  for  which  there  is  some  evidence,  both  textual  and 
contextual,  makes  Enoch  attribute  the  above  result,  viz.,  the  exact  division  of  time, 
to  the  sun  rather  than  the  moon  (Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  II,  J40).  If  this  repre- 
sents the  original  reading,  it  leaves  Enoch  in  entire  agreement  with  the  author  of 
Jubilees  and  makes  him  more  of  a  Greek  than  he  otherwise  would  be. 


k^UAAkMMiiMB 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTEKATXntE 


33 


use  SAij  and  foD«  were  the  antitheses  of  each  other.  "Elements" 
(o-TOiX'Ioi')  is  used  in  a  Greek  sense  in  Wisdom  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:17; 
19:18).  In  Slavonic  Enoch,  man  is  made  by  divine  wisdom  out  of  ' 
seven  substances  (Slav.  En.  30:8).  In  the  same  book  we  have  a  pic- 
turesque representation  of  the  world  being  formed  out  of  pre-existent 
material  (Slav.  En.  25:1-2).  It  is  possible  that  Slav.  En.  24:2,  which 
as  it  stands  seems  to  contradict  this,  may  be  textually  faulty  (cf .  Charles, 
Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  II,  444).  These  few  unordered  expressions  are 
signs  of  that  movement  toward  the  Greek  conception  of  matter  which 
was  perfected  in  Philo. 

When  transcendence  is  so  intensified  as  to  make  dualism  a  logical 
necessity,  the  question  of  the  medium  of  creation  becomes  a  vital  issue. 
In  late  Hebrew  thought  the  need  was  felt.  Contact  with  Greece  facili- 
tated interpretation.  Wisdom  (nCDn)  now  became  m^,  vm,  or 
Xoyos.  While  it  is  true  that  God  is  spoken  of  as  the  all  (to  iro»  Itrrir 
avTvt,  Ecclus.  43:27;  cf.  11:14;  16:26;  18:1-14;  36:5,  «/ ai.),  yet  o-o^ia 
is  the  creative  principle  which  is  poured  out  from  the  mouth  of  Yahweh 
on  all  the  earth  (Ecclus.  i :  4-9).  The  Book  of  Jubilees,  though  an  attack 
on  Hellenism,  is  so  far  unconsciously  influenced  by  its  environment  as 
to  assign  the  various  natural  phenomena  to  the  charge  of  angels  (Jub. 
2:2;  cf.  En.  60:12-21).  The  author  of  Wisdom  was  undoubtedly  a 
convert  to  the  age.  Soi^io  was  the  medium  by  which  God  made  the 
world  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:22-25;  8:1,  5;  10:17;  cf-  9-9)-  She  was  the 
master-workman  {rtxnnjt,  13:1)  and  was  with  the  Almighty  before 
he  made  the  world.  She  was  an  unmingled  emanation  from  the  glory 
of  the  Almighty.  This  descriptive  phrase  (irofipoia  .  .  .  .  d  XutptK^, 
7:24)  was  one  which  in  the  Greek  world  did  duty  in  cosmological 
theories.  Athenagoras  uses  both  terms  for  a  similar  purpose  (Apol. 
10).  It  corresponds  to  the  Stoic  idea  of  the  htmian  soul  being  the 
out-pouring  of  the  divine  world-soul.  The  way  in  which  <n^  is 
spoken  of  in  Wisdom  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:1;  7:22-27;  cf.  IV  Mace.  6:35) 
shows  us  that  not  only  were  the  phrases  of  the  Stoics  the  common  prop- 
erty of  the  writer,  but  the  \6yot  of  the  Greeks  as  a  creative  principle 
had  gained  an  advocate  at  court  among  the  Hebrew  people. 

The  archetypal  ideas  of  Plato  may  have  left  a  slight  trace  in  one  or 
two  of  our  books  (Dahne,  Gesch.  Darst.  der  jud.-alex.  relig.  Phil.,  II, 
15-16,  does  full  justice  to  the  evidence).  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  b 
the  command  to  build  a  temple  on  the  holy  moimt  in  resemblance 
(jufjirilia)  of  the  holy  temple  which  was  prepared  from  the  beginning 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:8;  cf.  LXX  Ex.   25:4,  9,  and  Charles,  Apoc.  and 


mmmf'^Kwsi^mn^mm^m 


■aiitiiHiMfiMi 


34 


THE  JEWISH  APOUXSETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKLD 


Pseud.,  I,  5.<;o).  In  the  same  book  it  is  said  that  in  the  long  gannent 
of  the  priest  was  the  whole  world  (oAot  i  Kotr/uK,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  18:24). 
Whether  this  was  purposely  used  as  a  symbol  or  not,  the  same  figure 
is  uken  up  both  by  Philo  {De  Man.  II,  5;  Vita  Mos.  Ill,  14;  De  Prop. 
jo;  De  Migt.  Abr.  18)  and  by  Josephus  (Ant.,  II,  vii,  8)  as  of  symbolic 
significance  referring  to  the  whole  universe. 

In  Slavonic  Enoch  there  are  many  statements  which  show  an  appro- 
priation of  the  same  current  thought.  Time  and  time  again  the  author 
refers  to  the  visible  and  the  invisible  things  (Slav.  En.  24:4;  2s:t; 
47:4.5;  Si^S;  64:5;  65:1,6;  cf.  LXX  Gen.  1:2).  In  25:1,  "I  com- 
manded in  the  depths  that  visible  things  should  come  out  of  the  invisible 
things,"  there  seems  to  be  a  decided  leaning  toward  archetypal  ideas. 
Likewise,  "For  before  anything  which  is  visible  existed,  I  alone  held 
my  course  among  the  invisible  things"  (Slav.  En.  24:4).  Even  more 
definite  is,  "Before  that  anything  existed  and  all  creatires  were  made, 
the  Lord  made  all  things  both  visible  and  invisible"  (Slav.  En.  6$:  i). 

From  what  we  have  seen  above  we  should  judge  that  while  the 
Hebrews  were  rarely  particularly  interested  in  cosmological  specula- 
tion, yet  they  borrowed  sufficient  of  the  culture  of  the  Greeks  to  make  it 
possible  to  gain  their  attention  for  weightier  doctrines.  Not  only  did 
some  of  them  freely  and  technically  use  Greek  philosophical  terms,  but 
•  they  borrowed  their  ideas.  A  carefully  and  harmoniously  ordered  uni- 
verse, passivity  of  matter,  and  creation  by  subordinate  beings,  arche- 
typal ideas,  are  among  the  most  outstanding  cosmological  readjustments 
made  by  those  who  were  leaders  of  Jewish  thought.  These  were  all 
carried  to  their  full  expression  by  their  chief  Hellenist,  Philo. 

B.      PSYCHOLOGY 

The  Evaluation  of  Human  Personality 
It  is  convenient  for  us  to  analyze  this  side  of  our  question  under  the 
following  heads:  the  nature  of  man,  the  idea  of  conscience,  the  problem 
of  freedom,  and  the  conception  of  iimnortality.  These  problems,  which 
to  us  are  psychological,  were  by  the  andents  construed  in  a  metaphysical 
sense. 

Treating  first  the  nature  of  man,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  turn  our 
attention  to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  ideas  respectively.  In  the  early 
popular  Greek  conceptions  which  have  been  preserved  in  Homer  {Odyssey 
x-ii)  the  soul  (<hn(n)  had  an  existence  in  the  body  (<rS/«i),  yet  independent 
therefrom,  and  it  was  the  only  part  which  survived  after  death.  Yet 
in  Hades  its  existence  was  rather  colorless.    The  Dionysian  cult  in 


tm^^mmf'im'Vfmm^miitf^ 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LITERATtJRE 


35 


Thrace  had  a  well-defined  dualism,  though  it  believed  that  the  soul 
could  not  exist  apart  from  a  body.    One  of  the  earliest  attempts  of  the 
Greeks  to  explain  the  nature  of  man  from  a  philosophic  standpoint 
is  that  of  Heraclitus.    He  conceived  the  soul  of  man  to  be  an  exhalation 
of  fire,  which  developed  out  of  the  moist  constituents  of  the  world,  and 
that  it  was  identical  with  the  Logos.    It  was  thus  only  the  finer  part 
of  the  material  substance  of  the  universe,  but  herein  is  the  beginning  of 
the  philosophic  dualism  of  body  and  soul.    This  is  completed  by  Anaxag- 
oras.    To  him  row  was  a  spiritual  not  a  material  substance,  and  it 
alone  was  simple,  pure,  and  unmixed.    He  further  identifies  rm  with 
ifnixn-    Socrates  asserts  that  the  soul  is  part  of  the  universal  mind, 
and  Plato  describes  human  souls,  which  were  compounded  by  the  Creator 
himself,  as  being  thrust  down  into  bodies,  which  corresponded  in  per- 
fection to  the  degree  of  their  fidelity  to  their  higher  nature.    These 
souls  were  both  pre-existent  and  immortal.    The  Stoics,  in  complete 
accord  with  their  pantheistic  view,  considered  that  there  were  souls 
in  all  vegetation  and  also  in  the  lower  animals.    Only  in  man,  however, 
did  this  soul  become  rational.     It  was  divided  up  into  eight  parU,  viz., 
the   five   senses,  speech,  reproducrion,    and   the   sovereign   principle. 
Through  life's  experiences  the  Xoy«  was  evolved  in  the  individual  by 
impressions  which  were  transmitted  through  the  senses  to  the  sovereign 
principle  of  the  soul.    Thereby  the  human  soul  came  into  touch  with 
the  universal  Xoym.    Thus  we  have  a  dualism  of  body  and  soul,  the 
soul,  pre-existent  and  immortal  as  it  is,  linked  up  with  the  soul  of  the 
universe;   the  body,  material,  hence  mortal  (cf.  Adams,  Relig.  Teachers 
of  Greece,  131).    The  soul  on  the  one  side  was  linked  up  with  the  soul  of 
the  universe,  on  the  other  side  it  made  its  impression  upon  man  through 
his  reason  (voCs)  which  was  human  (Adams,  Relig.  Teachers  of  Greece, 
131).    Thus  their  psychology  inevitably  led  them  to  trichotomy. 

The  Hebrew  conception  may  now  be  briefly  summarized.  In  general  • 
there  is  no  clear  distinction  between  soul  and  body  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  writers  seem  to  have  in  mind  the  man  as  a  unit,  and  personality 
is  not  analyzed.  Various  words,  such  as  TDB5,  DTI  liS3,  1153,  fTn, 
rrafflS,  33b,  are  used  in  a  quite  inclusive  and  non-technical  sense.  It 
is  true' that  body  and  soul  are  sometimes  placed  over  against  each  other 
(Dan7:is;  Job4:i9;  14:22;  Ps-  '6:9;  63:2-10);  also  that  we  have  in 
Gen.  2:4—3:1  a  possible  foundaUon  for  trichotomy,  but  on  the  whole 
these  speculations  were  of  little  interest  to  the  Hebrew.  One  significant 
passage  occurs  in  which  the  spirit  (m-H)  is  spoken  of  as  a  vital  spark 
which  comes  from  and  returns  to  God  (Eccles.  12:7).    Here  there  seems 


"■(PIPIPPBIP!*- 


1 1  namtiOitmMtmm 


36 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GSECIAN  WORLD 


to  be  a  complete  difTerentiation  between  body  and  spirit  which  agrees 
with  and  may  have  been  due  to  Grecian  influence. 

In  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  interbiblical  period  we  are  con- 
stantly faced  by  a  dualistic  anthropology  which  was  Platonic  rather 
than  Jewish.  The  body  and  the  soul  are  clearly  set  over  against  each 
other  in  all  the  boolcs  which  at  all  touch  on  the  subject  (Ecclus.  1:30; 
2:1,17;  4:2,6;  En.  22:3-7;  Bar.  2:17;  Sibyl.  Or.  678,  683,  e/ai.).  The 
body  belongs  to  the  earth,  is  mortal,  and  is  antagonistic  to  the  spirit 

•  (Sibyl.  Or.  678-83).  In  En.,  chaps.  1-37,  the  fact  that  the  visions  were 
received  by  Enoch  before  he  was  married  may  be  an  indication  of  that 
ascetic  tendency  which  finds  the  roots  of  evil  in  the  body.  While  the 
soul  and  the  body  are  made  for  each  other  in  the  Twelve  Patriarchs 
(Twelve  Patr.  T.  Naph.  2:2,  3)  in  accordance  with  the  best  Platonic 
schema,  yet  in  the  same  book  the  body  is  represented  as  the  seat  of  evil.. 

•  To  the  author  the  liver  is  the  source  of  wrath.'  Such  significant  phrases 
as  the  following  are  found:  e.g.,  "Since  my  liver  was  mercilessly  set 
against  Joseph"  (T.  Gad  5:11);  "The  spirit  of  fighting  in  the  liver 
and  gall"  (T.  Reub.  3:4;  cf.  T.  Zeb.  2:4;  T.  Naph.  2:8;  T.  Sim. 
2:4;  4:1).  Even  more  clearly  is  the  same  doctrine  presented  in  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon.  "A  corruptible  body  [o-i/ia]  weigheth  down  the 
soul  and  the  earthly  tabernacle  [o-ic^i-os]  lieth  heavy  on  a  mind  that  is 
full  of  cares"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:15;  cf.  Plato,  Phaedo  83D,  81C;  where 
<«ijH  is  used  in  the  same  way).  Or  again  we  read  that  Wisdom  shall 
not  dwell  in  a  body  which  is  subject  to  sin  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  1:4,  Karixptif 
aitapriat),  a  phrase  that  is  similarly  used  by  Polybius  and  Sophocles. 
The  same  idea  also  underlies,  "Not  being  ignorant  that  their  nature 
by  birth  was  evil  and  their  wickedness  inborn"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  12:10; 
cf.  4:3-6;   i2:ii;  8:19,20). 

Similar  is,  "I  also  am  mortal  like  to  all,  and  am  sprung  from  one 
bom  of  the  earth"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:1).  A  further  passage  which  is 
difficult  of  interpretation  is,  "Now  I  was  a  child  of  parts,  and  a  good 
soul  fell  to  my  lot;  Nay  rather  being  good,  I  came  into  a  body  unde- 
filed"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:19,  20).  While  the  dualism  is  striking,  the  last 
phrase  is  often  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  body  is  morally  neutral, 
only  reflecting  the  virtues  or  the  guilt  of  the  animating  spirit.  On  the 
whole,  however,  the  indications  seem  clear  that,  like  Plato,  our  author 

■  While  these  expressions  by  the  definite  way  in  which  they  relate  the  passions 
to  the  physical  organs  seem  to  show  Grecian  coloring,  they  nevertheless  strongly 
remind  us  o(  the  Old  TeaUment  use  of  pibs  (Jer.  I3:a;  Job  J9:>7i  Prov.  23:16; 
Ps.  16:7;  73:»0  and  3b  or  aab  (Isa.  30:29;  Jer.  15:16;  Pi.  25:17;  13:3;  19:6). 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATURZ 


37 


thought  of  the  body  as  the  seat  of  evil  (Phaedo  83D,  8iC).  In  a 
chapter  of  Enoch  which  seems  to  show  that  ascetic  interest  which  arose 
from  a  belief  in  the  inherent  evil  of  the  flesh  the  same  thought  again 
recurs.  Speaking  of  the  humble  "who  afflict  their  bodies  and  are  [for 
that]  recompensed  by  God,"  the  author  further  describes  them  as  those 
"Who  loved  God  and  loved  neither  gold  nor  silver  nor  any  of  the  ti^Mds 
of  the  world,  but  gave  their  bodies  to  torture,  and  who,  since  they  came 
into  being,  longed  not  after  earthly  food,  but  regarded  their  bodies  as 
a  breath  that  passeth  away,  and  lived  accordingly,  and  were  much 
tried  by  the  Lord,  and  their  spirits  were  found  pure  so  that  they  should 
bless  His  name"  (En.  108:8,  9).  A  somewhat  different  statement  is 
found  in  a  later  writer.  The  author  of  IV  Maccabees  says  in  regard 
to  the  desires,  that  some  belong  to  the  soul  and  others  to  the  body;  and 
over  each  of  these  classes  the  reasoning  appears  to  bear  sway  (IV  Mace 
1:31).  This  appears  to  be,  however,  rather  the  basis  of  an  analysts 
of  the  passions  than  a  statement  of  genetic  relation  (cf .  IV  Mace,  i :  20- 
27;  2:4).  From  the  above  it  will  readily  be  seen  that  while  the  Jewish 
writers  of  this  period  were  but  slightly  interested  in  psychology,  they 
were  nevertheless  strongly  influenced  by  their  environment  in  their 
conception  of  the  body. 

Much  more  striking,  however,  is  the  Grecian  influence  on  the  idea 
of  the  essential  principle  of  man.  The  soul  is  the  chief  part  of  man. 
Various  very  significant  words  are  used  to  designate  this  inner  principle. 
*"'OTi  irfcE^,  toC?,  <l>p-qv,  trtvant  with  a  number  of  writers  are  synony- 
mous terms.  In  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  we  find  mviia  used  as  referring 
to  the  senses  (Twelve  Patr.  T.  Reub.  2:3 — 3:2).  In  this  peculiar 
passage  which,  it  has  been  said,  presents  ideas  found  nowhere  else  out- 
side of  Stoic  literature  (Charles,  A  poc.  and  Pseud.,  II,  297,  and  Comm., 
in  he.)  it  seems  the  soul  is  dissected  into  eight  different  parts,  five  of 
which  represent  the  senses,  the  other  three  being  respectively:  power  of 
reproduction,  the  fact  of  sleep,  and  the  spirit  of  life.  That  this  b 
influenced  by  Stoicism  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  the  Stoics  distinctly 
taught  that  the  soul  was  divided  into  eight  parts,  much  the  same  as  the 
above  (Plutarch  De  Plac.  iv.  21;  Charles,  Test.  Twelve  Patr.,  4).  In 
MS  248  of  Sirach  in  an  interpolation  which  follows  17:4,  there  is  a  similar 
eightfold  division  of  the  soul  (Charles,  Test.  Twelve  Pair.,  5).  Slavonic 
Enoch  has  also  preserved  the  marks  of  the  same  influence:  "  I  gave  him 
seven   natures:    hearing  .....  sight  .  .  .  .  ,   smell  .....   touch 

taste "    For  the  remaining  part  of  the  passage  which 

b  corrupt,  Charles,  working  from  a  similar  passage  in  Philo,  suggests 


KUW  i>n,Bi.,i  ll!!IUiwyii.il 


38 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAM  WOKLD 


that  "the  vocal  organs  and  the  generative  powers"  may  be  the  phrases 
required  for  the  text  (Slav.  En.  30:9).  But  apart  from  this  sporadic 
feature,  we  find  that  the  whole  trend  of  this  time  was  to  interest  itself 
in  the  conception  of  the  soul  as  distinct  from  the  body.  Some  of  the 
thinkers  even  went  farther  and  endeavored  to  divide  the  inner  life  into 
two  parts:  the  soul  and  the  spirit.  Up  to  the  beginning  of  the  first 
century  B.C.  these  two  views — dichotomy  and  trichotomy — held  their 
place  side  by  side.  In  Ecdesiasticus  we  find  ^vxv  as  parallel  to  mvt 
(Ecclus.  1:30;  2:1,  17;  4:2,  6;  5:2;  23:6),  synonymous  with  irvcJ/jo 
(Ecclus.  9:9)  and  equivalent  to  xapSCa  (Ecclus.  1:28;  2:1,  17;  3:29; 
4:2).  En.,  chaps.  1-36  shows  the  same  attitude.  Most  frequently 
^rvxi)  and  Tvcv/ia  are  used  indifferently  (En.  22:3;  9:3;  22:5-7;  9:"~ 
13).  Three  texts,  however,  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  In 
9:10;  16:1;  22:3;  the  phrase,  "the  spirits  of  the  souls  of  the  dead," 
is  found  in  variants.  It  is  difficult  here  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
some  of  those  reworking  the  manuscripts  were  thoroughgoing  trichoto- 
mists.  In  the  same  period,  moreover,  we  find  the  doctrine  of  trichot- 
omy expressed  clearly  in  Ecclus.  38:23;  Bar.  2:17,  and  Tob.  3:6.  In 
the  following  century,  however,  dichotomy  held  quite  general  sway. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  passages:  II  Mace.  6:30; 
7:37;  I4:.38;  15:30;  En.  98:10;  102:5,  11;  103:3,  7,  8;  Ps.  of  Sol. 
4:13;  9:19;  15:11;  16:14.  What  seems  to  be  a  glimpse  of  trichotomy 
appears  in  this  century  but  once,  viz.,  II  Mace.  7:22,  23. 

The  belief  in  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul,  which  is  stated  more  than 
once  in  this  period,  is  the  last  needed  evidence  for  the  influence  of  the 
Greek  dualism  on  the  thinkers  of  these  days.  In  three  passages  the 
author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  more  than  implies  such  a  pre-existence. 
In  15:8,  he  uses  the  expression:  "When  the  life  [t^s  ^x5*]  which  was 
loaned  him  shall  be  demanded."  Again  in  16 :  11  is  a  passage  even  more 
convincing,  "For  as  much  as  he  knew  not  his  Maker,  and  Him  that 
inspired  into  him  an  active  soul  [mu  tot  iftrvtwram.  outi(!  Voixv* 
inpymmr]  and  breathed  in  a  living  spirit  [wotiiw.]."  In  the  light  of 
these  two  passages  and  the  general  Greek  tone  of  the  book,  the  same 
interpretation  would  seem  to  be  needed  for  8: 19,  20,  "For  I  was  a  child 
of  parts,  and  a  good  soul  fell  to  my  lot;  nay  rather  being  good,  I 
came  into  a  body  undefiled."'    The  Assumption  of  Moses  teaches  that 

■  F.  C.  Porter,  in  Old  Teiiamtnt  and  Semitic  Sludiei,  in  Memory  of  Wittiam  Rainey 
Harper,  Vol.  I,  under  the  title  "The  Pre-existence  of  the  Soul  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom 
and  in  the  Rabbinical  Writings,"  has  done  a  very  careful  piece  of  work  in  which  he 
does  not  accept  the  above  view  which  till  recently  has  been  quite  commonly  held. 
His  arguments  which  have  been  accepted  by  Maldyn  Hughes  in  Ethics  of  Uu  Jewisk 


A  KEVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATUKX 


39 


"Moses  was  designed,  and  devised  and  prepared  from  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world  to  be  the  mediator  of  the  divine  covenant"  (Assurap. 
Mos.  1:14;  cf.  En.  48:2;  62:6,  where  Son  of  Man  is  pre-existent). 
The  idea  which,  at  best,  is  limited  to  one  individual  takes  on  a  wider 
sweep  in  Slavonic  Enoch.  To  this  writer  all  soiJs  are  pre-existent: 
"  For  every  soul  was  created  eternally  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  " 
(Slav.  En.  23:5;  cotUra,  Hughes,  Eth.  Jew.  Apoc.  Lit.,  201).  This 
thoroughly  Greek  conception  was  made  a  part  of  the  system  of  Philo 
{Leg.  All.,  I,  12,  28;  De  Somn.,  I,  22),  was  accepted  by  the  Essenes 
(Jos.,  Jew.  Wars,  II,  viii,  11),  and  later  became  a  prevailing  dogma  in 
Judaism. 

The  idea  of  immortality  in  its  various  phases  follows  on  logically 
from  the  last  discussion.  The  Greeks,  who  most  influenced  Judaism, 
believed  in  an  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  not  of  the  body,  hence  their 
conception  should  be  classed  as  spiritual  as  opposed  to  material.  The 
Hebrews,  however,  in  their  Scriptures  left  very  few  statements  which 
are  definite.  To  quote  R.  H.  Charles:  "  In  Job  it  [immortality]  emerges 
merely  as  an  inspiration.  Only  in  Pss.  49  and  73  (if  our  interpretation 
is  valid)  does  it  rise  to  the  stage  of  conviction  "  (Enc.  Bib.,  1347).  While 
this  no  doubt  is  true,  we  must  recognize  that  individual  inmiortalitjr 
lay  implicit  in  much  of  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament.  Likewise 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  in  any  crystallized  form,  plays  no  impor- 
tant part  in  its  thought.  From  symbolic  passages  of  national  import, 
such  as  Ezek.,  chap.  37,  developed  under  the  influence  of  eschatological 
conceptions,  we  find  at  least  two  passages  which  deal  with  the  general 
idea  of  resurrection.  In  Isaiah  we  are  told,  "Thy  dead  shall  live;  my 
dead  bodies  shall  arise,  awake  and  sing  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust,  for 
thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  forth  her  dead" 
(Isa.  24:19).  In  Daniel,  the  other  significant  passage,  we  find,  "And 
many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to 
everlasting  life  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt"  (Dan. 
12:2).    Appreciating  the  development  between  these  two  passages, 

Apocryphal  Literature,  177  f.,  are  to  the  effect  that  the  idea  of  pre-existence  in  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  is  essentially  Jewish  and  not  Greek.  He  argues  that  the  Jew  thought 
of  the  person  as  composed  of  body  which  was  from  below  and  of  spirit  or  breath 
which  was  from  above;  while  the  Greek  thought  of  the  soul  as  the  thinking  self  or  the 
person.  While  Dr.  Porter  marshals  all  possible  details  to  maintain  that  body  and 
soul  are  used  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  in  the  Jewish  sense,  not  so  much  over  against 
each  other  as  together  constituting  the  real  personality,  it  seems  to  the  present  writer 
that  the  author  is  not  only  using  Greek  phraseology,  but,  though  perhaps  not  000- 
listent  throughout,  he  is  tinctured  with  Greek  thought  (ci.  Charles,  Enc.  Bib.,  1368, 
t}7i,tnd  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  U,  sit-ii). 


idUMMfeiaaHfau 


40 


THE  JEWISB  APOLOGEnC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORID 


which  took  place  in  a  little  over  a  century  and  a  half,  we  judge  that  the 
idea  of  a  bodily  resurrection  waS  not  uncommon  in  the  years  preceding 
our  period. 

Turning  now  to  the  material  in  hand,  we  are  again  aware  of  the 
attempt  of  many  Jews  to  meet  the  Greeks  on  their  own  ground.  In 
Ecclesiasticus  the  old  Hebrew  idea  is  still  dominant.  For  the  individual 
there  is  no  immortality.  "Who  shall  give  praise  to  the  Most  High  in 
the  grave,  ....  because  the  son  of  man  is  not  immortal  and  all  men 
are  earth  and  ashes"  (Ecclus.  17:25-32;  rf-  22:11;  44:9)-  The  per- 
petuation of  a  name  is  an  incentive  for  a  good  life  and  is  one  of  the 
highest  rewards  (Ecclus.  37:26;  39:9-11;  41:13;  44:14).  This  nega- 
tive side,  however,  like  some  similar  expressions  of  the  Old  Testament 
(of.  Job  14:10-14),  seems  to  be  a  groping  after  a  conscious  future  exist- 
ence. The  beginning  of  that  thought  may  very  well  underlie  many  of 
the  passages  of  thb  book  (Ecclus.  17:17-32;  14:16;  41:1-13).  A  few 
other  sections  of  the  book  present  what  appears  to  be  a  gleam  of  a 
positive  doctrine.  "The  spirit  of  those  that  fear  the  Lord  shall  live; 
....  for  He  is  his  hope"  (Ecclus.  34:13,14).  "Blessed  are  they  that 
saw  thee,  and  they  have  been  beautified  with  love:  For  we  also  shall 
surely  live"  (Ecclus.  48:11;  cf.  40:11,  12).  In  the  Epistle  of  Baruch 
the  old  Hebrew  conception  is  stated  in  such  an  emphatic  negative  way 
as  to  suggest  antagonism  against  the  permeating  influence  of  Greek 
thought:  "For  the  dead  that  are  in  the  grave,  v.-hose  breath  is  taken 
away  from  their  bodies,  will  give  unto  the  Lord  neither  glory  nor  right- 
eousness; but  the  soul  that  is  greatly  vexed,  which  goeth  stooping  and 
feeble,  and  the  eyes  that  fail,  and  the  hungry  soul,  will  give  thee  glory 
and  righteousness,  O  Lord"  (Bar.  2:17,  18).  To  Baruch,  life  ({«ij) 
is  the  ultimate  individual  reward  (Bar.  4:2;  3:9,  11,  14;  2:17)  and 
glory  and  might  is  the  future  hope  of  the  nation  (Bar.  4:18,  21, 

»3-2S)- 

The  latest  type  of  Jewish  thought,  viz.,  Daniel,  a  followed,  though 
perhaps  narrowed  down,  in  both  I  and  II  Enoch  (En.,  chaps.  1-36  and 
chap^  37-71)-  The  resurrection  is  limited  to  Israel  and  is  to  precede 
the  judgment  (En.  22:1-4;  S^'-^'<  61:5).  Alongside  of  this  is  held 
out  the  indefinite  promise  of  long  life  to  the  righteous  (En.  5:9;  25:4-6; 
cf.  62:15,  16). 

In  the  Book  of  Jubilees  we  meet  a  definite  statement  concerning 
the  future  which  is  a  turning-point,  and  shows  unmistakably  the  influ- 
ence of  their  neighbors:  "And  their  bones  will  rest  in  the  earth,  and  their 
spirits  will  have  much  joy"  (Jul).  23:31).    Here,  for  the  first  time,  a 


A  REVIEW  OP  THE  LITERATURE 


41 


blessed  immortality  awaits  the  spirit,  but  there  is  no  hope  of  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body. 

The  old  lines  in  general  are  followed  by  the  Book  of  the  Twelve 
Patriarchs.  The  resurrection  is  a  physical  one,  and  the  eternal  life 
which  is  promised  is  to  be  enjoyed  on  a  renovated  earth  (Twelve  Patr. 
T.  Dan.  5:12;  T.  Zeb.  10:3;  T.  Jud.  25:3-5;  T.  Asher  5:3;  6:4-6; 
7:3;  T.  Benj.  10:6-10).  The  tone  is  essentially  the  same  in  II  Mac- 
cabees. The  unrighteous,  at  least  the  tyrant,  will  have  no  resurrection 
to  life  (II  Mace.  7:14).  The  righteous,  those  who  belong  to  Israel, 
and  particularly  those  who  suffer  martyrdom,  shall  be  raised  to  a  life 
everiasting  (II  Mace.  7:9,  14,  23,  30,  36;  12:44),  which  will  be  in  a 
physical  body  (II  Mace.  7:11,  23;  14:16),  and  will  enjoy  an  earthly 
messianic  kingdom  (7:29,  33,  37;   14:15). 

Third  Enoch  (En.,  chaps.  91-108)  swings  clear  over  to  the  Grecian 
statement  of  the  doctrine.  The  author,  in  a  long  passage,  definitely 
and  vigorously  assails  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  the  future  world  (En. 
102:4 — 104:9).  He  exhorts  the  righteous  not  to  grieve  if  their  souls 
descend  into  Sheol.  Then  he  summarizes  the  orthodox  Sadducean 
thought  in  a  passage  quite  similar  to  Ecclus.  2:14-16  and  3:19-21: 
"As  we  die  so  die  the  righteous  and  what  benefit  do  they  reap  from  their 
deeds?"  (En.  102:6-8).  Following  this,  he  declares  that  immortality 
of  the  soul  is  the  only  goal  and  hope.  The  wicked  shall  be  in  an  ever- 
lasting Sheol  of  fire  (En.  98:3,  10;  99:9,  11;  103:7).  The  promise 
to  the  righteous  is,  "and  the  spirits  of  you  who  die  in  righteousness  will 
live  and  rejoice  and  be  glad,  and  their  spirits  shall  not  perish,  but  their 
memorial  will  be  before  the  face  of  the  Great  One  unto  all  generations 
of  the  world  "  (En.  103 : 4). 

When  we  come  to  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  and  Wisdom  the  atmosphere 
is  Grecian,  though  the  ideas  are  in  general  a  development  of  the  Hebrew 
thought.  In  the  Psalms,  for  those  who  fear  the  Lord  and  do  righteous- 
ness there  is  eternal  life  (ti«  {wvk  aiuriov,  Ps.  Sol.  3:16;  9:4;  12:4-7; 
I3;S.  9.  11;  14:2,3,7;  15:8,15;  10:9).  The  doctrine  of  retribution 
in  the  eternal  life  is  strongly  asserted  (Ps.  Sol.  2:7;  17:30-32,  37,  39; 
9:9;  13:5;  15:14;  17:10).  Destruction  which  savors  of  annihilation 
awaits  the  sinner  (Ps.  Sol.  3:13;  9:9;  12:7;  13:10;  14:6;  15:11). 
In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  immortality  again  is  spiritual  and  not 
physical,  hence  Grecian  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  2:23;  3:4;  6:19).  This  wTiter, 
even  more  clearly  than  Enoch  (En.  102:4 — 104:2),  conceives  death  to 
be  only  a  semblance  which  is  the  beginning  of  real  life.  "But  the  souls 
of  the  righteous  are  in  the  hand  of  God,  and  there  shall  no  torment  touch 


UlMiMiiUlitfMW^UaiMiiailiiaMM 


,  --.■..—. —i.^w,MJi^-. ..;.,... 


yuuMiaiiw 


HiiiliiiriiiMiMiiHiariiiMaati 


41  THE  JEVrtSB  APOLOGEnC  TO  TBE  GKECIAN  WORLD 

them.    In  the  sight  of  the  universe  they  seem  to  die;  and  their  departure 

[JfoSfft]  is  taken  for  misery  ....  but  they  are  at  peace Yet 

is  their  hope  full  of  immortality"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  3:1-4).  This  most 
likely  took  color  from  current  Greek  thought.  Similar  to  it  is  the 
expression  of  Euripides,  which  freely  rendered  is,  "  Who  knows  whether 
life  is  death  or  death  is  life  ?  "  (cf.  Wace,  A  pocrypha,  1, 437).  Variants  of 
the  same  idea  are  found  in  many  Greek  writers  (Maximus  Tyrus,  Dissert., 
XXV,  28s;  Plat.,  Epinom.,  9926;  Philo,  del.  pot.  insid.  Opp.  I,  200; 
cf.  Grimm,  Comm.,  in  loc.).  We  meet  here  also  Grecian  words  used  in  a 
quite  Grecian  sense.  'Adamtrla  (immortality)  is  of  frequent  occurrence 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  3:4;  4:1;  8:13,  17;  15:3).  Its  significance  is  never 
physical.  It  seems  to  have  been  first  used  by  Plato  in  respect  to  the 
gods.  'Kt^Bapaia  (incorruptible  immortality),  found  in  Wisd.  of  Sol. 
2:23;  6:18,  19,  and  only  again  in  IV  Mace.  17:12 — though  of  frequent 
use  in  Philo — conveys  a  decidedly  Grecian  idea.  ©omTot  (death), 
following  Platonic  usage,  is  never  used  for  annihilation.  While  death 
may  be  escaped  through  virtue  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  1:15;  2:22;  6:18),  yet 
in  general  through  death  the  soul  enters  upon  retribution.  Here,  again, 
is  seen  the  mind  of  Plato.  The  result  of  Grecian  tendencies  is  again 
seen  in  Slavonic  Enoch.  A  blessed  immortality  of  endless  life  is  the 
position  of  those  who  in  patience  and  meekness  accomplish  the  number 
of  their  days  (Slav.  En.  50:2;  65:8-10;  66:6).  The  whole  tone  of  the 
book  suggests,  if  it  does  not  prove,  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the 
body.  The  attitude  toward  the  future  life  is  essentially  the  same  in 
the  Book  of  IV  Maccabees.  For  the  wicked  there  is  eternal  torment 
(IV  Mace.  9:9,  32;  10:11,  15;  12:19;  13:15;  18:5,  22),  while  there 
awaits  a  blessed  immortality  for  the  righteous  (IV  Mace.  9:9,  22;  10: 15; 
13:17;  17:4,  18;  18:23). 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  we  have  a  reversion  to  the  earlier 
Hebrew  idea.  Here  we  have  a  statement  in  its  most  developed  form 
of  physical  resurrection:  "For  the  earth  will  then  assuredly  restore  the 
dead,  which  it  now  receives,  in  order  to  preserve  them,  making  no  change 
in  their  form,  but  as  it  has  received  them,  so  will  it  restore  them,  and  as 
I  have  delivered  them  unto  it,  so  also  shall  it  raise  them.  For  then  it 
will  be  necessary  to  show  to  the  living  that  the  dead  have  come  to  life 
again,  and  that  those  who  have  departed  have  returned  "  (Apoc.  of  Bar. 
50:2-3;  cf.  49:2—51:3). 

Thus,  so  far  as  the  doctrine  of  immortality  is  concerned,  we  find 
that  under  Grecian  influence  the  Hebrew  doctrine  of  a  bodily  resurrection 
came  to  its  gradual  elaboration  through  the  writers  of  Twelve  Patri- 


A  KEVIEW  OF  THE  LITEKATUSE 


43 


archs,  II  Maccabees,  and  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  Most  of  the  writers 
of  this  period,  however,  made  their  writings  palatable  to  their  rulers  by 
adopting  the  entirely  spiritual  conception  of  the  resurrection.  The 
chief  leaders  in  this  movement  were:  Enoch,  Psalms  of  Solomon,  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  a  few  passages  in  II  Maccabees,  and  Slavonic  Enoch. 

To  some  of  the  religious  thinkers  the  freedom  of  the  will  became  a 
problem  in  this  age.  This  question  had  in  no  way  seriously  disturbed 
their  forefathers.  Constantly  in  the  Old  Testament  we  find  the  idea 
of  absolute  divine  sovereignty  and  human  free  ■mW  lying  side  by  side 
without  any  attempt  to  reconcile  them.  It  was  vastly  different  with 
the  philosophic  Greeks.  The  physics  of  their  early  writers,  indeed  even 
of  the  Stoics,  held  resolutely  to  the  principle  of  determinism.  Plato,  in 
part,  broke  with  this  when  he  suggested  that  the  reason  why  the  Creator 
had  not  produced  a  perfect  work  was  because  He  was  limited  by  the 
indeterminateness  (to  irttpoy)  of  the  phenomenal  existence  {Tim. 
46C;  48A;  68E;  cf.  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  I,  62).  However,  in 
the  sphere  of  ethics  the  conclusions  of  a  Monistic  philosophy  were  not 
followed.  By  devious  and  many  arguments  they  maintained  the  power 
of  choice,  if  not  always  in  a  complete  way  for  the  individual,  yet  in  a 
real  way  for  the  universal  Xoyo?.  Though  destiny  and  fate  provided 
that  bad  dispositions  should  not  be  free  from  sins,  yet  the  general  con- 
clusion was  that  every  man's  own  will  governed  his  moral  impulses 
and  actions.  In  ways  which  seemed  harmonious  to  the  individual 
philosopher,  these  two  pwles  of  thought  were  bridged  so  as  to  preserve 
the  universe  to  him  as  a  metaphysical  unity. 

Among  these  Judaistic  writers  sovereignty  is  always  an  axiomatic 
truth.  To  reconcile  individual  freedom  with  that  is  their  task.  Ecclesi- 
asticus  holds  to  predestination,  on  the  one  hand  (Ecclus.  16:26;  23:20; 
33:7-13;  39:20),  and  affirms  as  emphatically,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
principle  of  freedom  (Ecclus.is:ii-2o;  17:6;  21:11,  27,28;  33:1;  cf.Hart, 
Ecclus.  in  Greek,  154).  In  I  Enoch  (chaps.  1-36)  the  origin  of  sin  is 
traced  back  to  the  angels  under  the  term  watchers.  This  reinteipretxi- 
tion  of  Gen.  6: 1-4,  under  foreign  influence,  was  the  writer's  method  of 
adjusting  himself  to  the  thought-world  in  which  he  moved.  The  giants, 
who  were  the  offspring  of  the  unnatural  union  of  fallen  angels  and  women, 
became  the  evil  spirits  upon  the  earth,  who,  though  invisible,  were  the 
efficient  causes  in  the  oppressions,  the  wars,  and  the  evils  of  humanity 
(En.,  chaps.  15,  16,  6).  In  II  Enoch  (chaps.  37-71)  we  find  Satan  as 
the  ultimate  cause  of  sin.  He  it  was  who  caused  the  watchers  to  fall 
(40:7;    54:6;    cf.   69:8-11,  a  Noachic  fragment  where  Eve  is  led 


44  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORLD 

astray  by  demoniac  agencies).  Yet  in  spite  of  this  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  sin,  freedom  is  assumed  on  the  part  of  the  authors  of  both  I 
and  II  Enoch  (En.  5:1-4,  5;  27:2;  41:1).  In  Tobit,  the  will  is  the 
direct  cause  of  transgression,  hence  the  individual  alone  is  blameworthy 
(Tob.  4:5).  The  Book  of  Jubilees  carries  both  ideas  side  by  side.  Pre- 
ordination is  expressed  (Jub.  5: 13),  as  is  also  moral  accountability  Qub. 
41:25;  33:16).  In  the  Epistle  of  Baruch  indeterminism  is  simply 
assumed  (Bar.  2:29,  30).  The  Twelve  Patriarchs  is  entirely  orthodox, 
for  both  sides  of  the  question  are  emphasized.  It  goes  farther,  however, 
and  makes  an  attempt  at  reconciliation.  The  help  which  the  human 
will  may  receive  from  the  Lord  brings  to  the  one  fearing  God  enlighten- 
ment and  deliverance  (Twelve  Patr.  T.  Jud.  20:1;  T.  Sim.  3:4,  5; 
T.  Benj.3:4, 5).  En.,  chaps.  91-108,  is  more  positive  as  to  indeterminism 
than  any  previous  writer.  To  this  writer  "  Sin  has  not  been  sent  upon 
the  earth,  but  man  himself  has  created  it,  and  into  general  condem- 
nation will  those  fall  who  commit  it"  (En.  98:4;  cf.  91:18;  94:3,  4). 
The  same  seems  to  be  the  doctrine  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (Ps.  Sol. 
9:7).  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  there  is  divine  foreknowledge  (Wisd. 
of  Sol.  14:5;  17:2;  11:20;  12:10),  but  along  with  this,  freedom  is 
asserted  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  1:16;  5:3;  13:6-9;  19:2).  Here,  as  in  the  case 
of  Jubilees,  victory  may  be  gained  over  evil  through  the  strength  of 
God  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  12:16;  9:4-6;  cf.  Jub.  21:25;  22:10,  Assump. 
Mos.  12:7).  The  privilege  of  choice  between  the  two  ways,  good  and 
evil,  light  and  darkness,  was  given  to  Adam,  according  to  Slavonic 
Enoch  (Slav.  En.  30:15,  originating  perhaps  in  Jer.  21:8).  While  in 
this  book  there  is  a  determinism  as  to  the  number  of  souls  and  the 
place  of  each  in  the  hereafter  (Slav.  En.  58:5)  and  a  limitation  placed 
upon  each  man's  freedom  by  his  own  ignorance  (Slav.  En.  30:16),  yet 
that  responsibility  which  can  be  based  only  in  moral  freedom  is  assumed 
throughout  (Slav.  En.  30:11;  cf.  F.  C.  Porter  "The  Yefer  Hara," 
Bib.  and  Sem.  Studies,  154-56).  On  the  other  hand,  however,  he  follows 
the  lead  that  Satan,  through  ambition,  was  the  cause  of  moral  evil 
(Slav.  En.  29:4,  5;  31:1-3).  Further,  he  it  was  who  seduced  Eve  and 
thus  started  flowing  the  currents  of  evil  (Slav.  En.  30:17;  31:2,  6; 
cf.  Ecclus.  25:24).  Demons  are  represented  as  the  inciting  cause  of  all 
sin  in  the  Martyrdom  of  Isaiah  (Mart.  Isa.  1:9;  2:4;  3:11;  5:1),  and 
Beliar  is  credited  specially  with  being  the  angel  of  lawlessness  (Mart. 
Isa.  2:4-6).  A  most  definite  conclusion  to  that  which  must  have  been 
a  growing  problem  in  the  minds  of  many  is  presented  in  the  Apocalypse 
of  Baruch.    His  conclusion  can  best  be  summed  up  in  his  on-n  words: 


-Ml^MMrilMftriirfH 


A  KEVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATUKE 


45 


"For  though  Adam  first  sinned,  and  brought  untimely  death  upon  all, 
yet  of  those  who  were  born  from  him,  each  one  of  them  has  prepared  for 
his  own  soul  torment  to  come,  and  again,  each  one  of  them  has  chosen 

for  himself  glories  to  come Adam  is  therefore  not  the  cause, 

save  only  of  his  own  soul,  but  each  one  of  us  has  been  the  Adam  of  his 
own  soul"  (Apoc.  Bar.  54:15-19;  cf.  15:6;  19:1-3;  59:2;  18:1,  2; 
85:9).  Another  turn  is  given  in  IV  Esdras,  in  which  the  conclusion 
reached  is  that  sin  is  due  to  a  grain  of  evil  seed  which  has  been  sown  in 
the  heart  (IV  Esdr.  4:30;  7:92;  cf.  3:21;  7:118;  cf.  F.  C.  Porter, 
"The  Yefcr  Hara,"  Bib.  and  Scm.  Studies,  146-52).  The  same  author 
goes  farther,  and  holds  that  all  is  predetermined  by  the  sovereign  power: 
"He  hath  worlds  in  a  balance,  and  by  measure  hath  he  measured  the 
times,  and  by  number  hath  he  numbered  them;  aiid  '■e  shall  not  move 
them  or  stir  them,  until  the  said  measure  be  fulfilled"  (IV  Esdr.  4:36). 
Man  can  neither  find  out  nor  turn  aside  the  purpose  of  the  Almighty 
(IV  Esdr.  5:34-40;  6:6;  7:11,  70).  Yet  withal  the  writer  is  a  good 
Jew  and  hol3s  to  freedom  and  responsibility  (IV  Esdr.  7 :  27-30 ;  7:21,72, 
79;  8:56-62;  9:10,  11).  One  of  his  strongest  passages  is  "The  Most 
High  willeth  not  that  men  should  come  to  naught;  but  they  which  he 
created  have  themselves  defiled  the  name  of  him  that  made  them"  , 
(IVEsdr.  8:59,  60). 

In  our  study  of  the  psychology  of  this  period,  it  seems  fitting  to 
refer  to  the  emergence  and  use  of  the  word  for  "conscience."    That  this    ' 
idea  was  existent  in  the  olden  time  we  doubt  not  (Isa.  30: 15;  Jer.  20:3, 
4).    But  the  Hebrew  has  no  word  whereby  to  express  it.    The  Greek  i 
word  (TvwiSi^ffis  seems  to  have  first  been  used  in  Periander  by  the  * 
Stoics.    Again  it  is  found  in  Euripides'  Orest.  396.    It  is  apparent  that 
before  the  second  century  B.C.  it  had  become  a  technical  word  in  the 
psychology  of  the  Stoics.    In  the  LXX  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  the  word  is  only  once  used,  viz.,  in  Eccles.  10:20,  where  it  is 
used  for  5^  ("thought").  In  point  of  time,  its  first  fully  developed  use  is  | 
that  found  in  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs.    In  Test.     . 
Reuben  we  read,  "Even  until  now  my  conscience  causeth  me  anguish 
on  account  of  my  impiety"  (T.  Reub.  4:3).    The  acUon  of  conscience 
is  graphically  set  before  the  reader  in  Test.  Judah,  "And  in  the  midst  b 
the  spirit  of  understanding  of  the  mind,  to  which  it  belongeth  to  turn 
whithersoever  it  will.    And  the  works  of  truth  and  the  works  of  deceit 

are  written  upon  the  hearts  of  men and  the  sinner  is  burnt  up 

by  his  own  heart  and  cannot  raise  his  face  to  the  judge"  (T.  Jud.  20: 2-5). 
The  same  thought  is  expressed  in  Test.  Gad,  "For  he  that  is  just  and 


■■■fW^g 


46 


THE  JEWISH  AFOIACETIC  TO  THE  GKECIAN  WOKLD 


humble  is  ashamed  to  do  what  is  unjust.being  reproved  not  of  another.but 
of  his  own  heart,  because  the  Lord  looketh  on  his  inclination"  (T.  Gad 
5:3).  The  word  is  again  used  in  its  exact  sense  in  Wisdom  of  Solomon : 
"For  wickedness  condemned  by  her  own  witness  is  very  timorous  and, 
being  pressed  with  conscience,  always  forccasteth  grievous  things" 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  17:11).  While  the  verb  (wwaSwu)  is  found  in  three  of 
the  books  of  the  Maccabees  (I  Mace.  4:21;  H  Mace.  4:41;  III  Mace. 
j:8),  the  noun  is  not  again  found  within  the  bounds  of  our  literature- 

•  It,  however,  is  constantly  found  in  Philo  and  in  the  New  Testament. 
From  the  foregoing  it  is  seen  that  the  Jewish  writers,  intentionally 
or  unintentionally,  were  influenced  by  the  demands  of  the  Greek  culture 
in  the  field  of  psychology,  and  endeavored  to  meet  them  in  the  following 
ways.  Most  of  the  writers  unhesitatingly  and  quite  naturally  follow 
the  Greek  dualism.  A  number  under  the  dominancy  of  certain  Greek 
tenets  held  that  the  body  is  evil  and  the  source  of  evil.  Thus  for  it 
there  is  no  resurrection.  Others  in  opposition  thereto,  and  brought  to 
clearness  of  expression  thereby,  built  up  the  dogma  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  in  all  its  features.  Following  the  Greeks,  there  are  those 
who  declare  that  the  soul  is  pure  spirit,  the  essential  part  of  man,  pre- 
existent  and  immortal.  Others  produce  a  polemic,  which  makes  positive 
the  queries  and  the  fears  of  some  of  the  Old  Testament  writers,  and 
declare  that  for  the  individual  there  is  no  life  beyond  the  grave.  A  few 
take  a  side  departure  with  the  Stoics  and  analyze  the  soul  into  eight 
different  senses,  and  others  again  with  the  same  school  attribute  souls 
to  all  life,  vegetable  and  animal  alike.  Most,  however,  follow  the  general 
tendency  and  are  trichotomists — quite  largely  so  in  the  second  century 
B.C. — or  dichotomists,  prevailingly  so  during  the  last  century  before 
Christ.  Likewise  under  their  teachers  they  gain  a  definite  expression 
for  the  conception  of  the  rfile  which  conscience  plays  in  the  individual 
life.  As  for  the  principle  of  freedom  of  the  will,  the  influence  of  the 
period  is  seen  in  three  ways:  (i)  We  find  an  effort  to  explain  the  origin 
of  evil  as  the  work  of  evil  angels  or  of  Satan.  (2)  There  were  those  who 
endeavored  to  unite  free  will  and  sovereignty,  by  the  nexus  of  a  divine 
dynamic  which  enforced  the  will  of  the  individual.  (3)  Others  made  the 
categorical  statement  that  the  will  was  free,  and  paid  much  less  considera- 

,    tion  to  the  question  of  sovereignty  than  would  ba,ve  been  consistent  to 
the  early  Hebrews. 

e.      APOLOGETIC  IN  ETHICAI.  CONCEFTIONS 

It  is  recognized  that  the  psychology  of  any  people  is  fundamental 
to  their  ethical  conceptions.    We  have  seen  that  in  spite  of  certain 


MkM 


iiitofftfi 


A  KEVIEW  OP  THE  LITERATinE 


47 


attempts  to  give  a  philosophic  account  of  the  origin  of  sin,  the  freedom 
of  the  will  became  the  axiom  of  the  age.  This  tendency  toward  sub- 
jectivity worked  itself  out  along  another  line  in  the  idea  of  conscience 
as  the  inner  monitor  in  the  field  of  morals.  These  movements  give  us 
the  foundation  for  an  advance  in  ethics  upon  cultural  lines.  In  this 
period  we  still  hear  the  messages  of  the  old  prophets  of  Israel.  Some- 
times, it  is  true,  their  principles  are  conveyed  through  that  apocalyptic 
symbolism  which  threatens  to  obscure  them.  Often,  however,  the 
annunciation  of  great  moral  principles  is  heard  in  tones  as  ringing  as 
ever  heard  in  the  heyday  of  prophecy  (cf.  Twelve  Patr.  T.  Gad  6; 
Slav.  En.  42:6-14;  52:1-4;  63:1-4;  66:6-8).  One  brief  illustra- . 
tion  out  of  many  is  sufficient  to  convince  us  that  the  fires  which  had 
been  burning  in  the  hearts  of  the  old  prophets  were  not  all  quenched: 
"Blessed  is  he  who  executes  a  just  judgment,  not  for  the  sake  of  recom- 
pense, but  for  the  sake  of  righteousness,  expecting  nothing  in  return;  a 
sincere  judgment  shall  afterwards  come  to  him.  Blessed  is  he  who 
clothes  the  naked  with  a  garment,  and  gives  his  bread  to  the  hungry. 
Blessed  is  he  who  gives  a  just  judgment  for  the  orphan  and  the  widow, 
and  assisU  everyone  who  is  wronged"  (Slav.  En.  42:7-9).  While  there 
are  numerous  illustrations  such  as  the  foregoing,  which  prove  that  the 
old  Hebrew  spirit  was  well  preserved,  yet  there  are  indications  not  a 
few  which  show  not  only  that  these  people  were  submerged  in  a  Grecian 
atmosphere,  but  that  some  of  their  moralisU  had  imbibed  deeply  the 
teaching  of  their  schools. 

In  the  new  environment  they  gain  a  new  outlook  on  life.  The 
spirit  of  the  pleasure-loving  Greeks  was  infectious.  The  carpe  diem 
of  the  Epicureans  found  a  ready  lodging-place  in  the  thoughts  of  some 
of  the  serious-minded  Hebrews.  Sirach  is  more  of  a  Greek  than  a  Jew 
when  he  concludes,  "The  gladness  of  the  heart  is  the  life  of  man,  and  the 
joyfulness  of  a  man  prolongeth  his  days.  Love  thine  own  soul,  and 
comfort  thy  heart  .  .  .  .  "  (Ecclus.  30:22-25).'  The  same  influence 
seems  to  have  left  its  mark  on  him  when  he  exhorts  his  hearers  to  "  Defraud 
not  thyself  of  a  good  day;  and  let  not  the  portion  of  a  good  desire  pass 

thee  by Give,  and  take,  and  beguile  thy  soul  .  .  .  .  "  (Ecclus.  . 

14:14-16). 

The  Greek  passion  for  beauty  of  form  was  not  without  effect  on  the    • 
Jews  in  some  quarters.    This  manifested  itself,  not  only  in  the  ready     • 

■  It  is  quite  possible  as  Charles  suggests  (A  poc.  and  Pseud.,  I,  J76),  that  as  a  similar 
attitude  toward  life  has  been  found  in  Babylonian  literature,  this  may  be  a  panlld 
and  not  due  to  Hellenic  coloring.  It  seems  liltely,  however,  that  Greek  thought  wai 
the  reagent  that  brought  this  to  its  first  expression  among  religious  leaders  o{  Judaism. 


'^^•mmni'm. 


t^MHMIiMittMriWIBtMN 


**ir 


,^,t,MitiimiUliaUtmiii,tm 


48 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOBLD 


response  of  the  Jewish  youth  to  the  gymnasm,  but  also  quite  naturally 
colored  literature.    It  is  adniitted  that  beauty  of  form  and  face  is  a 
thought  which  is  not  absent  from  the  Old  TesUment.    In  the  early 
literature,  beauty  of  appearance  (mS'a'nS'')  as  applied  to  woman  is 
found  in   Gen.    12:11;    29:17;   II   Sam.    14:27,  and  beauty  of  form 
("IWITS")  is  also  mentioned  in  three  places  (Gen.  29: 17;  Deut.  21 :  11; 
I  Sam.  25:3).    Outside  of  these  passages  the  beauty  of  woman  is  rarely 
referred  to  in  pre-Grecian  times.    In  the  literature  from  this  period  there 
is  a  growing  abundance  of  such  characterizations,  and  their  significance 
leans  toward  that  of  physical  beauty.    In  Canticles,  which  shows  Greek 
influence,  we  find,  as  we  might  expect,  an  exuberance  of  epithet  for  beauty 
(Cant.  1:8,  15,  16;  2:10,  13;  4:1.7;  5:9;  6:4,  10).    That  these  are  in 
large  part  physical  characterizations  needs  no  serious  defense  here.    A 
casual  glance  at  chap.  4  is  conclusive  proof.     A  similar  strain  is  suggested 
throughout  the  story  of  Esther  (cf.  2:7).     In  the  Grecian  addition  to 
Esther  this  idea  is  developed.    Carrying  herself  delicately  (rpvt^ptMo- 
fiiyti),  she  entered  before  the  king.    "And  she  was  ruddy  through  the 
perfection  of  her  beauty  [koXXovs],  and  her  countenance  was  cheerful 
and  amiable"  (15:3,  4).    In  Susanna  and  Judith  we  again  meet  the 
same  features.     Susanna  was  a  very  delicate  woman  {rpvifxpa  <r<^oJpo) 
and  beauteous  of  countenance  (<taX^  T<f  tliti,  vs.  31;   cf.  vs.  56).    That 
this  was  physical  is  clearly  shown  by  vs.  56,  which  declares  her  beauty 
deceived  the  ciders.    Judith  is  conmiended  by  Holofemes  for  her 
beauty  of  face  {iv  koXXu  rparaTrm,  11:21;  cf.  10:23),  and  he  approves 
of  her  pretty   or   courteous  (iffreia)   countenance  and  her  pleasant 
(iyaS^)  words  (11:21).    Expressions  and  ideals  such  as  these  were 
common  in  Greek,  and  go  back  at  least  as  early  as  Aristotle.    In  the 
Nicomachean  Ethics  (IV,  3,  5)  we  find  oZ  ji«/xk  ianiM  «al  oTjji/iCTpot 
itaXoJ  ST  oi».    In   the   Psalms   of    Solomon    the  beauty   (miXXw)  of  an 
ungodly  woman  may  be  the  cause  of  sin  (Ps.  Sol.  16:8;  cf.  Prov.  6:25; 
Ecclus.   9:8;    25:21).    Comeliness  or  good  form  (eVop""-)  is  one  of 
the  strongest  allurements  from  which  wisdom  was  able  to  turn  aside 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:10).    Similarly  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  beauty 
and  gracefulness  are  two  things  which  should  be  eschewed  for  the  sake 
of  the  higher  (Apoc.  Bar.  10:17;  cf.  21:23;  48:3.s)-    At  the  same  time 
this  writer  uses  the  same  word  to  e.xpress  his  ideal  of  future  glory  (Apoc. 
Bar.  51:3,  10;    54:8).    In  Tobit,  Naphthali,  the  father  of  Tobias,  is 
described  by  the  current  Greek  phrase  (icaXAov  itai  iyoBov,  Tob.  7:7). 
These  seem  to  be  adequate  indications  that  the  minds  of  the  Jewish 
people  readily  adopted  many  of  the  phrases  and  ideals  of  their  neighbors. 


•  > 


»   - 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATintE 


49 


The  above  paragraph  not  only  suggests  that  beauty  of  form  found  a 
large  place  in  the  writings  of  this  period,  but  also  that  concomitant  there- 
with the  attitude  toward  woman  was  Grecianizcd.  With  the  Hebrew 
people  it  is  true  that  woman  was  considered  subordinate  to  man  (Gen. 
3:16).  There  are  traces  in  the  Old  Testament  literature  where  crude 
and  primitive  conditions  have  been  preserved  (Exod.  21:7-11).  Yet  the 
status  of  woman  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  a  whole,  is  higher  than  that 
held  by  most  people  in  a  similar  condition  of  civilization.  "Honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother"  (Exod.  20:12),  presents  in  succinct  form  what 
must  have  been  an  early  ideal  of  those  people.  Later  it  is  put  even 
more  strongly,  "Ye  shall  fear  every  man  his  mother,  and  his  father" 
(Lev.  19:3).  The  eariy  creation-story  recognizes  the  wife  as  the  "help- 
meet" of  man  (Gen.  2: 18),  and  it  is  in  later  Hebrew  literature  that  we 
meet  what  might  well  be  termed  the  classics  on  the  ideal  woman.  The 
mother,  the  daughter-in-law,  the  thrifty  housewife,  and  the  sweetheart 
are  immemorably  enshrined  in  Isa.  49: 15,  Ruth,  Prov.,  chap.  31,  and  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  respectively. 

Far  different  was  it  in  the  Greek  literature  and  life.  In  the  Odyssey, 
Penelope  is  reproved  by  Telemachus  and  told  to  go  to  her  own  apart- 
ments. Respect  for  woman  was  not  very  high.  In  Alexandria  she 
appeared  unveiled  in  the  streets  and  moved  among  and  chatted  freely 
with  the  men.  What  some  of  the  teachers  had  lauded  in  theory— free- 
dom of  intercourse — was  an  all  too  prevalent  practice.  The  home,  owing 
to  theories  of  military  training  and  actual  war,  was  often  disorganized. 
Social  vice  was  in  sufficiently  good  standing  to  permit  the  female  cour- 
tesan to  figure  prominently  in  the  plays  of  Menander.  In  the  city  of 
Corinth  there  were  one  thousand  women  devoted  to  immorality  at  the 
shrine  of  Aphrodite  alone.  Thus  it  is  easily  seen  that  here  again  there 
was  a  wide  divergence  between  these  two  peoples. 

The  influence  of  the  looser  morals  and  the  lesser  reverence  of  the 
Greeks  was  speedily  felt.  The  faults  of  women  are  as  a  sweet  morsel 
under  the  tongue  of  the  Son  of  Sirach.  "A  wicked  woman  is  as  a  yoke 
of  oxen  shaken  to  and  fro:  He  that  taketh  hold  of  her  is  as  one  that 
graspeth  a  scorpion"  (Ecclus.  26:7).  "Give  me  any  plague  but  the 
plague  of  the  heart;  and  any  wickedness  but  the  wickedness  of  a  woman  " 
(Ecclus.  25:13;  cf.  25:16-26;  26:5-12;  42:9-14;  36:21-26,  e<ai.).  It 
is  not  impossible  that  Prov.,  chap.  5,  may  have  been  written  in  order  to 
meet  a  condition  of  morals  similar  to  that  existing  in  Palestine  in  the  time 
of  Antiochus.  This  condition  is  described  in  II  Mace.  6:1-4:  "Not  - 
long  after  this  the  king  sent  an  old  man  of  Athens  to  compel  the  Jews  to 


"W 


-'■|--iYTVi'--rrtii  i^i|,,n-miiirB,tiiaBtliitM>MiM<iaiiaiit^^ 


50 


THE  JEWISB  AFOLOGEnC  TO  THE  GREOAM  WOSIS 


depart  from  the  laws  of  their  fathers  and  not  to  live  after  the  laws  of 

God The  coming  in  of  this  mischief  was  sore  and  grievous  to  the 

people;  for  the  temple  was  filled  with  riot  and  revelling  by  the  Gentiles, 
who  dallied  with  harlots,  and  had  to  do  with  women  within  the  circuit  of 
the  holy  places,  and  besides  this  they  brought  in  things  that  were  not 
lawful."  It  is  apparent  that  such  influences  would  lead  many  to  assume 
toward  woman  the  same  attitude  both  in  theory  and  practice  as  that  of 
their  masters  (Twelve  Patr.  T.  Jud.  23:2). 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  old  reverence  for  women  still 
asserted  itself.  They  endeavored  to  offset  the  loose  tendencies  by  exhor- 
tation and  regulation.  In  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  the  youth  is  enjoined 
not  even  to  speak  with  the  women  on  the  street:  "Pay  no  heed  to  the 
face  of  a  woman,  nor  associate  with  another  man's  wife,  nor  meddle  with 
the  affairs  of  womankind"  (T.  Reub.  3:10).  "And  command  the 
women  likewise  not  to  associate  with  men,  that  they  also  may  be  pure  in 
mind.  For  constant  meetings,  even  though  the  ungodly  deed  be  not 
wrought,  are  to  them  an  irremediable  disease  and  to  us  a  destruction  of 
Beliar  and  an  eternal  reproach"  (T.  Reub.  6:2,  3;  cf.  4:1-5;  5:1-4;  T. 
Jud.  14:2,  3;  15:2;  23:2;  T.  Dan.  5:5;  T.  Benj.  8:2;  9:1,  et  at.). 
Virgins  were  required  to  remain  within  doors  (II  Mace.  3: 19;  III  Mace. 
1:18;  Philo,  De  Spec.  Leg.  31),  and  intermarriage  with  the  Gentiles  was 
strenuously  opposed  (Twelve  Patr.  T.  Jud.  14:6;  17:1).  Moreover, 
they  created  for  their  own  satisfaction  and  encouragement  such  pure 
and  beautiful  characters  as  Susanna  and  Judith,  who  in  fictitious  situa- 
tions embodied  the  lofty  Jewish  ideal.  Thus  in  spite  of  the  inroads  of 
Grecian  laissei  /aire,  yea  perhaps  strengthened  because  of  those  very 
influences,  they  preserved  for  the  New  Testament  times  one  of  the 
highest  conceptions  of  womanhood  the  world  had  ever  known. 

A  new  ambition,  stimulated  by  Grecian  ideals,  seems  to  have  been 
bom  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the  Jews  at  the  very  period  when  the 
struggle  with  their  enemy  was  strongest.  Personal  ambition  now  breaks 
out  among  the  people,  whose  former  leaders  had  set  up  personal  humility 
and  "  God's  glory  "  as  the  ideal.  "  Fame  "  and  "  Name,"  which  are  found 
so  frequently  in  the  Maccabees,  are  surely  Greek  ideals  on  the  lips  of  the 
Hebrews.  "And  they  said,  let  us  also  get  us  a  name,  and  let  us  go  fight 
against  the  Gentiles"  (I  Mace.  5:57;  cf.  2:51,  6:44;  9:10;  14:29;  3:3; 
II  Mace.  6:23,  <<  a/.;  cf.  Ecclus.  4:7;  7:7).  To  the  same  desire  we  may 
well  attribute  the  monument  which  Simon  had  erected  over  the  grave 
of  his  father  and  his  brethren  (I  Mace  13:27).  The  people  who  could 
not  identify  the  sepulchers  of  their  greatest  prophets,  because  their 


^imiitUlMaiiiamltmiikMmUSft^imi^ 


A  REVIEW  or  THE  LITERATURE 


SI 


religious  leaders  had  discouraged  all  pagan  reverence  for  the  dead,  now 
follow  the  lead  of  their  most  bitter  enemies  and  fashion  and  adorn  the 
pillars  after  the  most  approved  Greek  art  (I  Mace.  13:29).  ' 

In  the  ethical  realm  the  Jew  further  came  en  rapport  with  the  Greek 
by  absorbing  the  cultural  movements  of  the  day,  and  thus  broadening 
his  ethical  conceptions.  In  this  respect  the  four  "cardinal  virtues"  of 
the  Platonists  were  adopted  by  some  of  these  apologetes.  Temperance, 
Prudence,  Justice,  and  Fortitude  were  the  virtues  which  held  the  domi- 
nant place  in  the  Platonic  school  (Cicero  De  fin.  v.  23,  67;  cf.  De  of. 
i.  5).  Two  of  these.  Justice  and  Prudence,  were  the  common  property 
of  the  Jews.  Justice  was  proclaimed  by  the  prophets,  Prudence  had 
claimed  the  attention  of  the  sage.  Now,  however,  we  find  these  four 
bound  up  together  after  the  manner  of  the  Greeks:  "And  if  a  man  love 
righteousness  her  labors  are  virtues;  for  she  teacheth  temperance 
[o-tx^potrwii)  and  prudence  [<Ap«t7<t«],  justice  [SutoioimTj],  and  fortitude 
[irSptii}"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:7).  The  same  combination  is  found  in 
IV  Mace  1:18.  In  IV  Mace.  5:22,  23,  Piety  {tixripua)  which,  by  the 
way,  was  one  of  the  cardinal  virtues  for  Socrates,  displaces  Prudence. 
In  IV  Mace.  5:10,  high-mindedness  (^iyaAd^x»«)  and  brotherly  love 
(^cAo&X<^)  both  flavored  by  Grecian  ideals,  take  the  place  of  the  two 
peculiarly  Hebrew  virtues.  Justice  and  Prudence.  The  same  com- 
bination is  fundamental  to  the  ethics  of  Philo  {Leg.  An.  I,  19-23,  et  al.). 
While  it  may  be  true  that  by  critical  examination  we  perhaps  do  not 
find  the  e.Tact  shade  of  thought  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solon.on  and  IV 
Maccabees  that  is  found  in  Plato  and  his  followers,  it  is  quite 
apparent  that  the  Hebrews  here  appropriated  as  much  of  the  thought  of 
their  teachers  as  their  theological  system  permitted. 

While  the  combination  above  referred  to  is  found  only  in  the  places 
mentioned,  the  separate  ideas  are  emphasized  in  many  connections. 
This  is  especially  true  of  the  two  peculiarly  Greek  virtues.  The  demand 
for  temperance  is  found  very  frequently.  The  gymnasia  with  its  contests 
emphasized  in  a  very  concrete  way  the  obligation  of  temperance.  Spare 
living,  painful  effort,  self-mastery  were  the  conditions  of  success. 
Various  phrases  were  used  to  express  this  idea.  Besides  temperance 
(<ria<l>pc<nvri),  there  are  used  such  words  as  self-control  (lynpaToa),  free- 
dom from  passions  (Irapaiia),  and  phrases  such  as  the  mean  state 
(/xi^Sir  iyai-)  and  the  mind  as  ruler  of  the  passions.  Self-control 
{iyKpartia)  goes  back  to  Aristotle  where  its  technical  significance  is, 
the  mind's  mastery  of  the  passions.  This  is  a  favorite  word  and  idea 
with  the  author  of  Ecclesiasticus.    In  the  LXX  the  paragraph  (Ecclus. 


■itrCJfeiMi^f 


5J  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORIJ> 

18:30-33)  is  appropriately  entitled  lyKparua  ^vx^c.  The  same  theme 
bin  Ecclus.  3:21-24;  37:27-31;  cf-  i^-"-  The  same  thought  finds 
expression  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  where  it  is  said  "sufficient  is 
a  moderation  [to  lurpov]  with  righteousness"  (Ps.  Sol.  5:20;  cf.  Prov. 
30:8).  In  IV  Maccabees  the  same  thought  rules.  Freedom  from 
passion  is  the  goal  to  be  striven  for  (IV  Mace.  8: 26).  Further,  the  mind 
should  rule  the  passions  (IV  Mace.  1:16,  25;  2:4-6,  8-15,  22;  13:4). 
In  this  there  is  complete  agreement  with  the  Stoics. 

Fortitude  (ii^tii)  also  becomes  incorporated  in  their  ethical 
scheme.  "  Be  not  faint  hearted"  and  "be  of  good  courage"  are  constant 
admonitions  of  Ben  Sirach  (Ecclus.  2:12;  4:9;  7:10;  19:10,  et  al.). 
"Let  us  die  manfully"  (ivSpcui)  is  the  exhortation  of  Judas  to  his 
brethren  before  the  engagement  with  Bacchides  at  Elasa  (I  Mace.  9: 10). 
Faint-heartcdness  in  the  time  of  affliction  is  not  countenanced  in  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  (Ps.  Sol.  16:11).  In  II  Maccabees  manliness  or 
fortitude  is  the  ideal  (II  Mace.  r4: 18, 43;  15:17)-  The  same  is  counseled 
in  IV  Maccabees  (IV  Mace.  1:18;  2:23;  5:23). 

Further,  conUct  with  the  Greeks,  by  broadening  the  moral  reabn  of 
the  Jews  had  essentially  changed  the  approach  to  their  ethical  judg- 
ments. Piety  and  righteousness  were  the  fundamental  principles  in  the 
old  Hebrew  ideas,  and  they  were  approached  from  the  divine  side. 
Now  there  is  a  school  which  following  the  Greeks  consider  moral  excel- 
lence {iptrri)  the  fundamental  principle,  and  this,  mediated  as  it  was  by 
their  humanism,  had  its  outlook  on  the  human  side.  While  ipcrij  is 
found  in  the  LXX,  it  never  there  takes  the  place  of  any  ethical  word 
(Hab.  3:3;  Zech.  6:13;  Isa.  42:8, 12;  43:21;  63:7;  Esth.4:i7,(«WJ<.). 
In  the  interbiblical  period  it  is  used  to  cover  the  "cardinal  virtues"  in 
general  (II  Mace.  6:31;  15:12,17;  Wisd.  of  Sol.  4:1;  5:13;  8:7;  III 
Mace.  6:1;  IV  Mace.  1:2,  8,  10,  30;  2:10;  7:22,  «<  a/.). 

But  further,  and  most  important,  some  of  the  Jewish  teachers 
followed  a  school  of  Greek  thinkers  to  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  above. 
Culture  now  became  the  synonym  of  piety  (Bousset,  Xe/ij.  d.  Jud.,  189). 
It  is  true,  the  roots  of  this  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament  itself.  The 
seed  was  sown  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy:  "Behold  1  have  taught 
you  statutes  and  ordinances,  even  as  Jehovah  m>;  God  commanded 
me.  ....  Keep  therefore  and  do  them,  for  this  is  your  wisdom  and 
your  understanding  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people"  (Deut.  4:  S.  6).  Even 
more  clearly  is  it  expressed  in  Job  28:28:  "Behold  the  fear  of  the  Lord 
that  is  wisdom."  Again  we  find  the  same  thought  in  Ps.  1 19 :  34,  "  Give 
me  undersUnding,  and  I  shall  keep  thy  law."    A  substantial  background 


■  iiliii   im  nmitiiltmiiMm^i^ 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATUSE 


S3 


b  found  in  the  use  of  nSI  in  Hosea,  Isaiah,  the  Sages,  etc.  But  now, 
under  the  influence  of  Greek  thought,  this  tendency  is  accentuated. 
With  Socrates  knowledge  and  virtue  were  one.  Plato  taught  that  specu- 
lative [aot^ia)  and  practical  wisdom  (<^poMj<r«)  were  interchangeable 
terms  (cf.  Sidgwick,  Hist,  of  Ethics,  44).  In  Ecclesiasticus  it  is  impossible 
to  distinguish  between  the  use  of  these  two  words  (cf.  Hughes,  Etk. 
Jav.Apoc.  Lit.,  31).  In  the  first  chapter  we  have  a  significant  series  of 
predicates  for  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  "the  begin- 
ning of  wisdom"  (vs.  14),  "the  fulness  of  wisdom"  (vs.  16),  "the  crown 
of  wisdom"  (vs.  18),  "the  root  of  wisdom"  (vs.  20),  "wisdom  and 
instruction"  (vs.  17).  In  other  chapters  there  are  many  similar  desig- 
nations, as  "the  source  of  joy"  (Ecclus.  16:2),  "the  sum  of  all  wisdom" 
(Ecclus.  19:20),  "the  way  of  repentance"  (Ecclus.  21:6),  "its  end  b 
wisdom"  (Ecclus.  21:11).  The  exhortation  to  put  away  ignorance 
emphasizes  the  same  attitude  toward  knowledge  (Ecclus.  5:15;  23:3; 
cf.  Tob.  i-i).  We  have,  of  course,  to  recognize  that  wisdom  here  b 
equivalent  to  knowledge  of  the  law  (Ecclus.  24:1,  2;  1:26;  6:37; 
35:1-11;  cf.  En.  2:1-3;  5:4)-  This  appears  to  be  but  the  Jewish 
adaptation  in  which  piety  is  put  as  the  subject  of  the  Grecian  idea,  where 
wisdom  is  found  as  the  object.  It  is  the  Jewish  cast  of  the  statement, 
"virtue  is  knowledge"  (cf.  Charles,  Apoc.  and  Pseud.,  I,  269). 

The  Psalms  of  Solomon  is  the  next  book  to  make  a  contribution  on 
this  subject.  Wisdom  is  used  as  synonymous  with  virtue.  The  evil 
man  is  one  who  has  perverted  wisdom  (Ps.  Sol.  4:11).  There  is  a  hope 
that  Jerusalem  may  be  purged  by  means  of  wisdom,  by  means  of  right- 
eousness (cv  (To^iy,  h  iiKouxrw]),  Ps.  Sol.  17:25;  cf.  Viteau,  Les 
Psaumes  de  Salomon,  353).  When  we  compare,  "He  shall  judge  the 
nations  and  the  peoples  with  the  wisdom  of  hb  righteousness  {Iv  <ra^ 
&<caio<rvn;5  airov,  Ps.  Sol.  17:31),  with  "He  shall  be  wise  through 
the  counsel  of  understanding"  {koX  tro^ov  ivfiovXy  wvttr€ut%  koI  Sixauxrvn/c, 
Ps.  Sol.  17:42),  we  are  convinced  on  the  testimony  of  this  Pharisee  that 
Greek  thought  had  found  a  responsive  chord  in  the  Jewish  heart  (cf.  Ps. 
Sol.  17:40;   18:8). 

In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  after  we  have  made  due  allowance  for 
the  h>TX)statizing  of  Wisdom,  we  again  find  ourselves  faced  by  Greek 
ethical  conceptions.  "And  his  power  when  it  is  tried  maketh  manifest 
the  unwise  [tow  att>pomt],  for  into  a  malicious  soul  wisdom  [<ro^ui] 
shall  not  enter"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  i  .-3-5).  "The  multitude  of  the  wise  are 
the  welfare  of  the  world,  but  wisdom  will  have  no  fellowship  with  an 
envious  man"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  6: 23,  24).    Kings  are  admonished  to  learn 


54 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOCETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOBLD 


wisdom  that  they  may  not  fall  away  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  6:9),  and  this  is  the 
panacea  which  shall  quickly  remove  all  care  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  6: 15).  The 
gift  of  wisdom  is  the  greatest  of  all  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:7),  and  the  gifts  that 
come  from  learning  make  us  friends  with  God  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:14).  God 
loveth  only  those  who  dwell  with  wisdom,  and  wisdom  alone  shall  be 
able  to  prevail  against  vice  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:28-30).  While  it  is  true 
no  doubt  that  wisdom  has  frequently  an  ethical  rather  than  an  intellectual 
connotation  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  3:9,  11;  5:6;  6:9,  10;  17:1),  and  it  has  to 
be  admitted  that  there  are  times  when  wisdom  may  perhaps  be  equiva- 
lent to  the  Law  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  6:4,  11,  12,  18;  16:6),  there  are  traces  of 
that  purely  intellectual  aspect  of  wisdom  which  could  have  been  penned 
only  by  one  quite  sympathetic  with  Greek  culture  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  i  :3,  4; 
7: 14-22).  The  culture  ideal  which  this  book  embodied  under  the  name 
of  Solomon  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:17-21)  is  none  other  than  that  of  the  cul- 
tured Alexandrian  about  100  B.C.  The  practical  expression  of  this,  with 
a  decidedly  Hebraic  coloring,  is  found  in  the  cleavage  between  the  Phari- 
sees and  the  Am  haarets.  The  Pharisee  was  one  who  was  completely 
instructed  in  the  Law,  while  the  Am  haarets  was  the  uninstructed,  the 
common  man  (cf.  Bousset,  Rtlig.  d.  Jud.,  190). 

In  Slavonic  Enoch  we  are  brought  into  close  touch  with  the  negative 
side  of  this  doctrine.  Adam's  sin  is  explained  as  due  to  his  ignorance  of 
his  own  nature :  "  I  knew  his  nature,  he  did  not  know  his  nature.  There- 
,  fore  his  ignorance  is  a  woe  to  him  that  he  should  sin"  (Slav.  En.  30: 16). 
"But  I  cursed  him  for  his  ignorance"  (Slav.  En.  31:7).  From  these 
quotations  it  is  clear  that  our  author  regarded  ignorance,  per  se,  as  a  sin, 
and  the  root  of  all  sin.  In  this  he  had  accepted  the  fundamental  Socratic 
principle  yvStOi  atavrmi.  Plato,  who  was  the  great  protagonist  of  this 
doctrine,  maintained  that  no  man  would  do  wrong  if  he  really  knew  it 
{Phaed.  229E,  230A;  Prot.  345D;   Tim.  86D;  Repub.  IX,  S89C). 

But  the  Jewish  writer  who  makes  the  most  complete  apology  in  this 
field  (aside  from  Philo)  is  the  author  of  IV  Maccabees.  While  holding 
to  the  general  proposition  that  virtue  and  wisdom  are  coincident,  he 
makes  a  flank  movement  on  the  Greeks  and  assumes  that  Wisdom  is 
bound  up  in  the  laws  of  Israel.  Wisdom  "  is  contained  in  the  education 
of  the  law  by  means  of  which  we  learn  divine  things  reverently  and 
human  things  profitably"  (IV  Mace.  1:15-17).  "We  should  be  dis- 
regarding our  fathers  if  we  did  not  obey  the  law  "  (IV  Mace.  9:2).  Israel 
must  as  a  people  be  loyal  to  their  own  laws  (IV  Mace.  5: 19),  and  thereby 
she  would  remain  unconquered  in  respect  to  virtue  (IV  Mace.  9: 18). 

Two  more  brief  questions,  both  apparently  somewhat  aloof  from  the 


ttitmti^mt^mtmtm 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LITERATURE 


55 


above  treatment,  yet  both  results  of  the  general  tendencies,  remain  to 
be  considered.  The  first  is  the  attitude  toward  truth  in  the  abstract. 
With  a  growing  subjectivity  and  surrounded  by  philosophic  speculation 
we  need  not  be  surprised  to  get  a  glimpse  of  a  struggle  toward  the  ascer- ' 
taining  of  truth.  This  glimpse  is  found  in  one  of  the  earliest  books. 
Be  ashamed  of  lying  "in  regard  to  the  truth  of  God"  (Ecclus.  41:19), 
In  another  place  the  same  writer  tells  us  that  "Truth  will  return  unto 
them  that  practice  in  her"  (Ecclus.  27:9).  In  Ecclus.  4:25-28,  the 
young  man  is  bidden  to  "strive  for  truth  unto  the  death,  and  the  Lord 
shall  fight  for  thee."  We  meet  essentially  the  same  exhortations  in 
Nic.  Ethics  iv.  and  Diog.  Laert.  vii.  11 7-19.  In  Tobit  we  meet  a 
similar  expression,  which  seems  to  be  a  favorite  one  with  the  author, 
viz.,  "Walking  in  truth"   (oS«  iXifiiui,    Tob.   1:3;    3:5;   4:6;    8:7; 

14:7)- 

The  second  question  is  that  of  the  sacredness  of  life.  There  seems 
to  have  been  introduced  in  this  period  not  only  a  less  desirable  attitude 
toward  woman,  but  also  a  less  reverent  view  of  life  itself.  In  Hebrew  ' 
thought  life  was  greatly  reverenced,  and  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
there  is  no  assured  case  of  the  suicide  of  an  Israelite  (Saul;  cf.  I  Sam. 
31:4;  II  Sam.  1:6-10;  cf.  Ahithophel;  II  Sam.  17:14;  cf.  vs.  23). 
Even  should  this  interpretation  be  doubted,  it  is  beyond  question  that 
there  is  no  praise  for  such  in  Scripture.  In  Greek  thought,  it  is  true,  we 
find  Plato  asserting  that  one  who  took  his  life  is  blameworthy,  because 
he  thereby  deserted  a  post  in  which  he  had  been  placed  by  God  {Phaed. 
6).  This  very  comment,  however,  carries  with  it  the  inference  that 
such  acts  were  not  altogether  unknown,  and  perhaps  even  in  Plato's  day 
they  may  have  had  apologists.  That  this  was  the  exact  situation  later 
we  learn  from  other  sources.  Zeller  informs  us  that  a  part  of  the  creed 
of  the  Stoics  held  that  it  was  permissible  for  one  to  take  his  own  life 
(Zeller,  Stoics,  318).  This,  of  course,  only  comports  with  their  attitude  " 
toward  life  in  general. 

This  may  perhaps  have  been  the  background  which  brought  to  full 
expression  in  a  number  of  instances  the  Jewish  ideals  in  that  regard.  In 
Tobit,  Sarah  in  her  despair  is  hindered  from  the  fatal  deed  by  this 
thought,  "If  I  do  this,  it  shall  be  a  reproach  unto  him  [her  father]  and  I 
shall  bring  down  his  old  age  with  sorrow  to  the  grave"  (Tob.  3:10). 
Twice  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  the  ban  is  put  on  suidde.  It  is  the 
wicked  men  who  have  called  it  (death)  to  them'  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  i :  16),  and 
again  we  find  the  following  exhortation,  "  Seek  not  death  in  the  error  of 
your  life"  (Wisd.  of  SoL  1:12).    That  the  crushing  persecutions  led 


'T'm 


■^^PWWWP^IWII 


S6 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORLD 


some  to  be  sympathetic  toward  the  Stoic  influence  is  seen  in  II  Macca- 
bees. The  suicide  of  Razis  meets  with  the  following  commendation: 
"He  fell  upon  his  sword,  choosing  rather  to  die  manfully,  than  to  come 
into  the  hands  of  the  wicked  "  (U  Mace.  14 :  43,  44).  Also  in  IV  Macca- 
bees the  glorying  in  martyrdom,  which  is  expressed  so  frequently,  may 
be  touched  by  the  Stoic  apathy  to  life  (IV  Mace.  9:17;  11:25;  IS^'S" 
18).  In  these  days  we  learn  from  Josephus  that  suicide  was  far  from  an 
uncommon  pracUce  (Jos.,  Jew.  Wars,  III,  vu,  34;  IV,  i,  10).  To  this 
unhappy  result  not  only  the  stress  of  circumstances  may  have  been  a 

'    cause,  but  the  Greek  thought  may  also  have  made  its  contribution. 

Thus  we  conclude  that  in  the  ethical  realm  there  was  a  decided  Jewish 
apologetic  to  the  Greeks.  While  the  old  Hebrew  ideals  still  obtained, 
and  some  Hebrew  principles  were  restated  more  clearly  than  ever  before, 
yet  there  was  a  very  definite  trend  which  would  help  to  mediate  even 
that  which  was  peculiarly  Jewish  to  the  Greek  mind.  Some  unfortunate 
Greek  attitudes,  as  that  toward  women  and  life,  had  become  the  familiar 
property  of  the  Jew.  He  also  embraced  the  Grecian  attitude  toward 
beauty,  form,  fame,  name,  and  ambition.  More  essential  features  he 
also  appropriated.  The  cardinal  virtues  of  the  Stoics  were  ingrafted 
into  his  code,  and  the  axiom  of  Plato  that  knowledge  is  virtue,  he 
colored  and  translated  into  Judaism.  While  on  the  whole  there  was 
little  coherence  in  his  ethical  system,  he  had  assuredly  become  all 

'     things  to  all  men. 

D.      THEOLOGY 

It  was  not  until  the  Greek  period  that  the  Jew  came  into  anything 
like  close  contact  with  a  people  of  speculative  interests.  Indeed  it  was 
not  until  their  colony  settled  in  Alexandria  that  they  came  face  to  face 
with  those  rationalizing  processes  which  sought  to  prove  that  God  was 
the  highest  perfection  of  which  it  was  possible  for  one  to  think,  in  fact, 
that  it  was  not  possible  for  the  human  mind  rationally  to  comprehend 
the  Deity.  This  conclusion  was  the  result  of  a  long  process  on  the  part 
of  the  Greeks  themselves.  The  fact  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  Aristotle 
(Rhet.,  II,  23,  1399)  that  Xenophanes  had  assumed  that  God  was 
uncreated.  But  the  pathway  of  later  argument  was  slow  and  tortuous. 
Anaxagoras,  who  may  be  called  the  father  of  theistic  theory,  held  that 
there  was  an  original  dualism.  Mind  and  matter  were  opposed  to  each 
other.  Mind  was  simple,  pure,  unmixed,  spiritual.  It  was  the  creator 
of  the  universe,  omnipotent  and  omniscient.  Socrates  made  an  impor- 
Unt  contribution.    He  taught  that  the  gods  were  personal,  inteUigent, 


A  REVIEW  OP  THE  UTERATtnUt 


57 


and  that  a  divine  purpose  was  running  through  creation.  Plato  con- 
sidered that  the  idea  of  the  good  was  highest  of  all,  and  that  it  was  the 
cause  of  all  the  beautiful,  the  parent  of  light,  the  supplier  of  truth,  and 
identical  with  the  divine  man.  Aristotle  emphasized  the  conception  of 
the  transcendence  of  the  Infinite.  The  Stoics,  working  from  a  monistic 
viewpoint,  held  that  God  was  "purest  body"  and  thus  identified  him 
with  nature.  They  endeavored  to  appropriate  both  the  teleology  of 
Socrates  and  the  transcendence  of  Aristotle.  Through  the  doctrine  of 
the  seminal  Logos  they  worked  out  a  theory  of  evolution  in  which  the 
gods  were  at  the  highest  point  of  an  ascending  scale,  of  which  matter  was 
the  lowest.  This  in  brief  suggests  the  type  of  theological  thought  with 
which  the  Jews  came  into  contact. 

To  the  Hebrew  people  the  idea  of  God  had  been  one  of  their  earliest  ' 
axioms.  He  was,  and  they  had  not  sought  to  prove  his  existence.  It  is 
true  that  during  the  centuries  their  ideas  had  changed.  In  early  days  he 
had  been  the  God  of  the  tribe,  declaring  himself  in  storm  and  war.  He 
had  been  very  near  to  the  early  fathers,  manifesting  himself  in  the  cloud 
and  on  the  mountain.  But  as  their  tribal  life  gained  coherence,  and  as 
their  national  life  touched  a  wider  world,  so  their  ideas  of  their  God 
changed.  From  the  deity  of  a  nomadic  people,  he  passed  to  that  of  an 
agricultural  nation,  with  a  growing  commerce.  Under  the  influence  of 
the  Prophets  the  conception  became  primarily  ethical,  hence  universal, 
and  with  the  fall  of  the  temple  came  the  emphasis  on  his  transcendence.  . 
Yet  while  the  God  of  a  small  nomadic  people  has  become  the  God  of  the 
universe,  controlling  nature  and  nations  alike,  there  had  been  no  specu- 
lation among  the  people  as  to  the  essential  nature  of  deity  or  the  modus 
operandi  whereby  he  keeps  in  touch  with  and  controls  this  universe. 
Nor  were  these  people  intellectually  capable  to  any  large  degree  of 
exercising  themselves  in  the  mazy  pathways  of  a  speculative  philosophy. 
So  while  we  find  that  many  of  their  statements  take  on  color  from  their 
environment,  yet,  on  the  whole,  in  their  statement  of  God  they  passed 
but  little  beyond  the  conceptions  of  their  fathers. 

The  emphasis  on  the  transcendence  of  Deity  is  one  of  the  most 
noticeable  features  of  this  literature.  Grecian  thought  has  thus  accentu- 
ated a  principle  already  assured  to  the  Hebrew  mind.  The  various 
names  which  are  used  for  God  give  striking  evidence  of  this  fact.  It  is 
here  to  be  noted  that  Yahweh,  the  early  Hebrew  name  for  their  tribal 
Deity,  is  never  used  in  the  LXX.  This  was  not  alone  due  to  reverence 
for  the  name,  which  later  became  too  sacred  to  be  pronounced  by  com- 
mon lips,  for  the  tetragrammaton  was  written  in  books  issued  after  the 


Ill  liiaitfr. 


S8 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GKECIAM  WOKIS 


lime  of  the  LXX  translation.  It  was  apparently  in  part  a  repudiation 
of  the  name  which  was  associated  with  the  idea  of  a  local  and  tribal  deity, 
so  as  to  meet  more  adequately  the  wider  conceptions  which  obtained 
in  Alexandria.  In  its  place  we  now  regulariy  find  m/MK  and  mpm  i 
(hot. 

Out  from  the  almost  innumerable  epithets  which  are  applied  to  Deity 
in  this  age  we  shall  gather  only  a  few  of  the  most  important.  The  Most 
High  (v^ioTot)  is  one  of  the  frequent  designations.  It  is  of  frequent 
occurence  in  the  LXX  (Gen.  14:18,  19,  20;  Deut.  32:8;  Ps.  7:17;  9:2, 
et  al.).  In  the  Book  of  EA:clesiasticus,  a  translation,  it  is  found  about 
forty  times.  It  has  its  Hebrew  counterpart,  Vl'bs  but  the  translation 
frequently  is  made  to  do  duty  for  the  humbler  SS  and  for  the  exclusive 
niiT.  The  same  thing  meets  us  as  we  move  down  through  the  litera- 
ture. Found  most  frequently  in  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  (T.  Sim.  2:5; 
T.  Levi  3:10;  4:1,  2;  5:1;  T.  Issa.  2:5;  T.  Gad  3:1;  T.  Asher  2:6; 
5:4;  7:3;  T.  Jos.  1:4;  3:10;  9:3;  10:3;  T.  Benj.  9:2)  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse of  Baruch  (21:3,  et  al.),  it  is  also  found  occasionally  in  the  Sibylline 
Oracles  (687,  629,  73s,  et  al.),  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  Judith  (13:18), 
II  Maccabees  (3:31),  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (5:15;  6:3),  and  the  Assump- 
tion of  Moses  (10:7;  cf.  4:2).  TEough  some  of  these  are  translations, 
the  fact  of  emphasis  on  the  aloofness  of  Deity  still  remains. 

Ruler  (Awoonp),  which  was  a  term  applied  by  the  Greeks  to  Zeus 
(Soph.  AtU.  608),  is  found  a  few  times  in  translations  (LXX  Job  6:23; 
15:20;  Lev.  19:15;  Ecclus.46:5;  47:5.8;  48:20),  but  more  frequcnuy 
in  Greek  compositions  (II  Mace.  3:24;  12:15,28;  15:3,4.23.29;  HI 
Mace.  2:2,  et  al.).  One  quotation  will  suffice  to  exhibit  the  tendency  of 
the  period:  "The  Lord  of  spiriu  and  Ruler  of  all  authority"  (4  rmr 
xvcv/iaran'  mpuK  «"  ira<7ij«  iiovaiat  ivuxarrp)  is  the  name  for  Deity  in 
II  Mace  3:24. 

Absolute  Ruler  or  Owner  (Acotto'tijs)  is  found  frequently  in  the 
LXX,  in  II  Maccabees  (5:17,  20,  et  al.).  Ill  Maccabees  (2:1;  5:12), 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  and  other  books. 

The  Greatest  One  (jiiyurrat,  III  Mace.  1:9,  16;  5:25;  4:16),  the 
Monarch  (jLovapxt,  III  Mace  2:1),  the  King  of  Kings  (4  Si  ^(urtXAt 
rm  /SoatXtir,  II  Macc.  13:4,  for  the  first  time),  and  many  other  com- 
binations all  contribute  to  the  same  conception.  Words  such  as  xipiat 
and  mwKpaTap  are  found  times  beyond  number  in  the  LXX  and  later 
literature.  Hebrew  phrases,  such  as  the  Holy  One,  the  Creator,  the 
Father  (the  All-Father  b  used  in  Sibyl.  Or.,  Ill,  550),  are  of  constant 
recurrence. 


A  REVIEW  O?  THE  UTEKATTTKE 


59 


Phrases  which  are  used  to  characterize  God  throw  further  light  on 
the  situation.  Statements  embracing  his  omnipotence  and  omniscience 
abound  everywhere.  He  is  the  One  who  liveth  forever  (Ecclus.  18:1; 
36:17;  42:21;  Job  13:1;  Sus.42;  Bel  and  the  Drag.  5:25;  Esther  16:6; 
11  Macc.  7:33;  cf.  Ep.  Bar.  4:22,  35;  5:2,  et  al.).  The  Greek  designa- 
tion immortal  {ieayarot)  is  the  favorite  term  in  Sibyl.  Or.,  Ill,  97-829 
(11.  loi,  276,  327,  672,  676,  678,  et  al.).  A  thoroughly  Grecian  expression  - 
is  used  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon:  "With  whose  beauty  if  they  being 
delighted  took  them  to  be  gods;  let  them  know  how  much  better  the 
Lord  of  them  is;  for  the  first  author  of  beauty  [i  ya^i  nm  xiXXmt 
y€yt<Tiapxrp]  hath  created  them"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  13:3;  cf.  13:5).  The 
same  idea  is  expressed  in  Ecclesiasticus:   "The  beauty  of  the  heaven, 

the  glory  of  the  stars at  the  command  of  the  Holy  One  they  will 

stand  in  their  order  and  never  faint  in  their  watches  "  (Ecclus.  43 : 9,  10).    ' 

Perhaps  in  a  general  way  there  is  no  more  illuminating  illustration  of 
the  spirit  of  the  age  than  the  quoution  of  one  of  the  prayers  which  has 
been  preserved.  In  early  Hebrew  literature  the  prayers  are  marked  by  * 
simplicity  and  directness  of  approach.  One  or  two  titles  for  Deity  in 
the  early  days  (Exod.  5:22;  15:11;  32:11;  I  Kings  8: 15)  gave  way  later 
to  the  more  ornate  and  less  direct.  Three  or  four  epithets  are  used  in 
Neh.  1:5;  Dan.  9:4;  Ecclus.  51:1;  Esther  13:9;  Jud.  9:12.  The 
climax  of  this  tendency  is  seen  in  the  Prayer  of  Manasseh,  where  eleven 
titles  are  used,  and  that  of  Jonathan,  where  there  are  fifteen.  The 
prayer  of  Jonathan  was  after  this  manner:  "O  Lord,  Lord  God,  Creator 
of  all  things,  who  art  fearful  and  strong,  and  righteous  and  merciful,  and 
the  only  and  gracious  King,  the  only  giver  of  all  things,  the  only  just, 
almighty  and  everlasting,  thou  that  didst  deliver  Israel  from  all  trouble 
and  didst  choose  the  fathers,  and  sanctify  them"  (II  Macc.  1:24,  25;  cf. 
Prayer  of  Man.,  vss.  1-4;  III  Macc.  2:2,  3). 

While  a  tendency  to  remove  anthropomorphic  and  anthropopathic 
conceptions  of  Deity  is  found  in  the  LXX  and  in  the  interbiblical  litera- 
ture, it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  by  no  means  general  and  thoroughgoing,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  as  truly  Hebraic  as  Grecian.  There  remain, 
however,  for  our  discussion,  a  number  of  characterizations  which  belong 
to  the  realm  of  pure  speculation  and  are  hence  to  that  extent  Grecian. 
One  of  the  eariiest  fragments  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles— and  this  is  a 
characteristic  note  of  the  whole  Jewbh  collection— has  an  echo  of  the 
speculative  thought  of  the  times.  "  The  sole  ruler  of  the  worid,  who  only 
through  eternal  ages  bides,  the  selj-existent,  unbegotttn  One"  (Proem., 
First  Frag.,  15-17;  cf.  AristoUe,  Rhel.  U,  23,  1399).    A  similar  thought. 


6o 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOKLD 


expressed  from  another  standpoint  in  II  Maccabees:  "Thou,  O  Lord, 
who  in  thyself  hast  no  need  of  the  universe"  (2v  Kvpu  rur  ikar 
dir/xKrSi^  Jxopx"",  II  Macc.  14:35;  cf.  Dahne,  Gesch.  Darst.  d.jud.-alex. 
relig.  Phil.,  II,  187),  is  completely  out  of  alignment  with  the  general 
Old  Testament  thought  and  is  in  the  closest  sympathy  with  that 
of  the  Greeks.  "The  one  having  no  need  of  anything"  (<n»  t<p  tS» 
imyrm  AxpoirStu,  III  Macc.  2:9)  expresses  exactly  the  same  idea  (cf. 
IV  Macc.  1:1;  13:16).  Josephus,  with  the  freedom  of  a  Jewish  his- 
torian, introduces  this  anachronism  into  the  Prayer  of  Solomon  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  (Jos.,  Ant.,  VIII,  iii,  3).  In  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  agreeable  to  Greek  phraseology,  He  is  called  the  One  who  is 
(twokto,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  13:1;  cf.  Apoc.  Bar.  48:24;  85:14). 

A  number  of  passages  should  be  referred  to  here,  which,  while  they 
may  not  go  beyond  that  development  of  thought  which  was  germane  to 
the  Hebrews  themselves,  may  easily  have  been  influenced  by  Greek  ideas. 
A  number  of  these  very  closely  approach  the  Platonic  idea  that  God  was 
tmknowable  in  his  essence:  "And  hardly  do  we  guess  aright  at  things 
that  are  upon  the  earth,  and  with  labor  do  we  find  the  things  that  are 
before  us;  but  the  things  that  are  in  heaven  who  hath  searched  out  ?" 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:16;  cf.  13:1;  Ecclus.42:i7;  43  =  3°.  3i)-  "Thesacred 
spirit  who  was  worthy  of  the  Lord,  manifold  and  incomprehensible" 
(Assump.  Mos.  11:16;  cf.  Apoc.  Bar.  14:15;  21:10;  Jud.  8:14,  16;  IV 
Esdr.  4:7-11).    "The  kingdoms  of  the  wise,  great,  inconceivable,  and 

never  changing  God,  the  Lord  of  AU the  unapproachable  throne 

of  the  Lord"  (Slav.  En.  Introd.;  cf.  Num.  23:19;  I  Sam.  15:29).  The 
same  influence  may  in  part  have  affected  the  idea  of  the  "incommuni-  • 
cable  name"  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  14:21).  Similarly  the  avoidance  of  the 
divine  name  Yahweh,  so  rigorously  observed  in  most  of  the  later  litera- 
ture, while  perhaps  based  in  taboo  because  of  the  Hebrew  conception  of 
the  relation  between  the  name  and  the  thing  in  itself,  may  have  been 
accentuated  in  a  measure,  owing  to  the  growing  idea  of  transcendence. 
It  is  clear  at  least  that  the  complete  omission  of  any  proper  name  for 
deity,  as  in  I  Maccabees,  is  a  tribute  to  the  influence  of  the  Greek  thought. 
The  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  and  the  solity  of  Deity  was 
one  which  would  easily  gain  a  listening  ear  from  the  Greek.  Aristeas 
assures  his  readers  that  the  Jews  worship,  like  all  other  men,  the  Greek 
God  Zeus,  only  under  a  different  name  (vs.  15).  The  negative  side  of 
that  tenet,  the  vanity  of  idolatry,  would  also  be  appreciatively  received 
by  them.  The  tirade  against  the  idols  is  so  constantly  on  the  lips  of 
these  leaders,  particularly  those  who  are  most  thoroughly  saturated  in 


,tt,timftimmmiama 


A  REVIEW  OP  THE  UTERAT17BE 


61 


Greek  thought,  that  one  is  inclined  to  feel  that  the  writers  were  quite 
aware  of  a  Grecian  audience  (Tobit,  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  Judith,  Twelve 
Patriarchs,  Wisdom  of  Solomon;  cf.  Bousset,  Rdig.  d.  Jud.,  90  f.). 

The  Jewish  conception  of  the  universality  of  God  is  one  of  the  most 
fruitful  ideas  of  the  apocalyptic  literature.  Its  scope  is  elaborated  and 
in  some  cases  made  more  definitely  Grecian.  The  thought  of  the  possi- 
bility of  the  salvation  of  the  gentile  world  in  whole  or  in  part  is  found 
frequently:  "Let  them  all  [i.e.,  all  the  nations]  know  thee  as  we  have 
also  known  thee"  (Ecclus.  36:5)  suggests  the  sweep  of  the  late  Jewish 
Wisdom-literature.  Holofemes  is  represented  as  willing  to  serve  and 
worship  the  God  of  the  Israelites  in  Jud.  1 1 :  23  (cf.  Jud.  9:14;  Sibyl.  Or., 
Ill,  614  ff.).  In-  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  there  are  many  expressions  of  a 
universal  outlook:  "The  Lord  shall  visit  all  the  Gentiles  in  his  tender 
mercies"  (T.  Levi  4:4;  cf.  14:4).  "And  in  his  priesthood  the  Gentiles 
shall  be  multiplied  in  knowledge  upon  the  earth,  and  enlightened  through 
the  grace  of  the  Lord'"  (T.  Levi  18:9;  cf.  2:11;  8:14).  "God  shall 
appear  on  earth,  to  save  the  race  of  Israel,  and  to  gather  together  the 
righteous  from  among  the  Gentiles"  (T.  Napht.  8:3).  "He  shall  save 
Israel  and  all  the  Gentiles"  (T.  Asher  7:3).  "And  the  twelve  tribes 
shall  be  gathered  there  and  all  the  Gentiles"  (T.  Benj.  9:2;  cf.  T.  Jud. 
15:5;  T.  Dan.  6:7;  T.  Sim.  6:5).  The  Psahns  of  Solomon  express  the 
same  sentiment:  "And  he  shall  have  mercy  upon  all  the  nations  that 
come  before  him  in  fear"  (Ps.  Sol.  17 :  32, 38).  In  Enoch  the  same  thought 
comes  to  complete  expression  more  than  once  (En.  10:21;  90:28-36). 

Besides  the  purely  apocalyptic  literature,  which  changes  from  a  very 
general  hope  for  some  or  all  of  the  Gentiles  in  the  earlier  literature  to  a 
general  condemnation  of  all  Gentiles  in  the  later  literature,  there  are 
three  or  four  striking  passages  which  lend  their  weight  in  the  direction 
of  universality.  A  verse  in  the  Testament  of  Levi,  which  is  considered 
late  by  Charles,  speaks  of  "  the  light  which  was  given  through  the  law,  to 
lighten  you  and  every  man"  (T.  Levi  14:4).  In  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  we  meet  perhaps  the  clearest  expression  of  this  idea.  "The 
judgment  of  the  Lofty  One  who  has  no  respect  of  persons"  (Apoc.  Bar. 
13:8;  cf.  44:4). 

The  thought  of  God's  providential  care  for  his  people  and  his  inter- 
vention on  their  behalf  is  of  ancient  date  for  the  Jews.  Both  these  ideas 
are  accentuated  here  if  possible.  Their  history  writing  is  replete  with 
illustrations  of  the  marvelous  way  in  which  their  God  has  delivered  them. 
In  order  adequately  to  express  themselves  on  this  matter  they  have 
borrowed  two  terms,  which  to  the  Greeks  already  had  a  theological 


•^fimmmr 


6a 


THS  JEWISH  APOUIGETIC  T6  TBE  GKECIAN  WOSLD 


significance.  "Manifest  signs"  (in<^vua)  vias  a  term  which  had  been 
used  by  the  Greeks  of  any  visible  appearance  of  a  God  for  any  purpose 
(Diod.  i.  15;  Plut.,  Thorn.  30).  In  II  Maccabees  this  seems  to  be  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  book:  "And  the  manifest  signs  that 
came  from  heaven  unto  those  that  behaved  themselves  manfully  to  their 
honor  for  Judaism"  (II  Mace.  2:  ji;  cf.  3:34;  5:2-4;  10:29,30;  11:6- 
it;  15:17).  The  author  of  III  Maccabees  has  gone  a  step  farther. 
The  Ini^iytia  are  more  clearly  distinct  from  God,  per  se,  and  are  seen 
to  function  almost  as  Svvu/ut  or  X0705  or  iyytXoi  (III  Mace.  2:9; 
5  =  8,35,51;  6:9,18,39).  Two  quotations  here  will  suffice:  "Thou  hast 
been  greatly  glorified  in  magnificent  manifestation"  (III  Mace.  2:9)- 
"To  pity  those  who  are  standing  even  now  at  the  very  gate  of  Hades 
with  your  manifestations"  (III  Mace.  5:51).  The  tendency  herein 
indicated  is  seen  very  clearly  in  a  passage  from  Josephus.  In  the 
cleaving  of  the  Red  Sea,  the  activity  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  iri^iitia 
T«v  $tm  (Jos.,  Ant.,  II,  xvi,  3). 

The  other  term  is  Providence  (»poKo<o).  The  idea  was  an  old  one. 
But  with  the  aeveloping  transcendence  of  the  idea  of  God  it  was  necessary 
that  the  doctrine  should  be  more  clearly  formulated.  The  necessary 
word  to  meet  the  need  was  at  hand,  npima  had  been  used  bf 
Herodotus  (iii.  108)  and  Plato  (Tim.  44C;  Phaed.  241E)  for  Providence. 
It  is  used  in  Xenophon  (Mem.  i.  4,  6)  in  an  absolute  sense  for  Divine 
Providence.  The  Stoics  had  appropriated  it  as  a  part  of  their  working 
theology.  Naturally  it  comes  into  use  in  the  Jewish  literature  through 
those  most  closely  in  touch  with  Greek  life.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
says,  "But  thy  providence  [xpoKKa]  O  Father,  govemeth  it"  (i.e.,  the 
vessel  at  sea,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  14:3;  ef.  17:2).  The  author  of  III  Macca- 
bees, a  representative  of  the  narrowest  type  of  Judaism,  quite  consistently 
with  his  general  conception  of  divine  care  for  Israel  says,  "That,  how- 
ever, was  the  work  of  an  unconquerable  providence  [rpoymat  iyuc^m] 
which  came  from  heaven  to  the  help  of  the  Jews"  (III  Mace.  4:21;  cf. 
5:30).  Again,  in  IV  Maccabees  we  find  it  used  as  follows:  "Through 
which  our  just  and  paternal  Providence  having  become  favorable  to  the 
nation  will  punish  this  persecuting  tyrant"  (IV  Mace.  9:24). 

From  the  above  we  learn  that  under  Grecian  influence  native 
tendencies  toward  transcendency  had  been  accentuated,  so  that  some 
were  beginning  to  think  of  God  as  unknowable  in  essence  and  unap- 
proachable. The  corollary  of  thb  was  a  complicated  system  of  inter- 
mediaries. Greek  speculation  had  early  felt  the  need  and  had 
endeavored  in  a  most  systematic  and  philosophic  way  to  bridge  the  gulf 


A  KEVIEW  or  THE  UTEKATT3XK 


63 


between  the  unknown  and  the  known.  Between  the  reaction  of  oppo- 
sites,  which  was  the  function  of  the  Logos  of  Heraelitus  and  the  seminal 
Logos  of  the  Stoics  there  had  been  many  suggested  hypotheses.  All 
alike,  however,  were  agreed  as  to  the  need  of  some  gradual  approach 
between  spirit  and  matter.  Plato  presents  one  of  the  most  complete 
systems,  and  yet  he  has  not  adequately  worked  out  the  causal  nexus 
between  his  world  of  ideas  and  the  actual  world.  He  conceived  the 
cosmos  to  be  a  living  being  endowed  with  a  cosmical  soul,  through  which 
relation  was  established  and  controlled  between  the  two  worlds.  That 
all-pervading  principle  he  named  iw  or  Xoyot.  The  Stoics  who 
identified  God  with  nature  worked  out  a  theory  of  rational  evolution. 
In  their  pantheistic  system  the  universal  Aoyot  which  was  known  under 
many  names  subordinated  to  itself  or  expressed  itself  through  the  seminal 
Xoyoi,  and  these  by  the  applied  physics  of  Heraelitus  were  the  efficient 
cause  of  all  things.  Thus  there  was  a  gradual  movement  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher  from  the  material  standpoint,  and  a  gradual  movement 
from  the  higher  to  the  lower  from  the  intellectual  standpoint. 

As  the  idea  of  transcendence  of  Deity  was  an  inner  development  of 
Hebrew  thought  itself,  so  also  the  conception  of  intermediaries  was  not 
foreign  to  it.  Even  in  the  earliest  literature  traces  are  still  preserved 
which  indicate  that  to  the  popular  mind  there  were  supernatural  beings 
besides  Yahweh.  In  the  well-defined  remnant  of  mythology  found  in 
Genesis,  we  have  the  conception  of  celestial  beings  who  seem  to  be  in 
measure  independent  of  Yahweh  (Gen.  6:1-4).  1°  Joshua  the  host  of 
Yahweh,  captained  by  his  prince,  is  ready  to  fight  the  battles  of  Israel 
(Josh.  5: 14).  In  a  very  remarkable  picture  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  what 
may  have  been  a  very  common  belief  is  accredited  to  Mieaiah  the 
prophet.  He  saw  the  council  in  heaven,  in  which  Yahweh  was  seated 
on  his  throne  and  surrounded  by  all  the  host  of  heaven  who  were  minister- 
ing servants  (I  Kings  22:19).  A  poetic  suggestion  behind  which  there 
may  lie  a  wealth  of  popular  angelology  is  found  in  the  Seraphim  in  the 
vision  of  Isaiah  (Isa.,  chap.  6).  True,  the  glimpses  are  but  few,  but  that 
even  so  many  were  preserved  in  spite  of  the  trenchant  prophetic  dogma 
of  practical  monotheism  is  indicative  of  the  original  abimdance  and 
persistence  of  such  material.  In  the  post-exilic  age  we  see  the  re- 
emergence  of  the  same  idea.  Following  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  the  need  of 
mediation  is  felt.  Even  Ezekiel  is  guided  by  a  supernatural  being  (Ezek. 
40:3).  To  Zechariah  there  must  be  sent  the  Angel  of  Yahweh,  as  the 
interpreter  of  his  visions  (Zech.  1:11,  et  al.),  and  Satan  functions  as  the 
Adversary  of  Israel  (Zech.  3:1,  2).    In  Job  there  is  a  heavenly  council. 


04  THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WOBLD 

and  Satan,  while  apparently  a  member  of  the  council,  perfonns  a  service 
which  is  inimical  to  man.  In  Isa.  24:21,  "the  host  of  the  height,"  and 
in  Dan.  4:17,  "the  watchers,"  we  have  part  of  the  nomenclature  for 
supernatural  beings  which  is  found  in  contemporary  literature. 

In  the  Grecian  period  the  development  of  the  idea  of  intermediaries 
diverges  in  two  directions.  The  one  is  along  the  line  of  angelology. 
This  was  largely  Jewish,  though  considerable  of  the  coloring  came  from 
Persia.  The  stress  of  the  times  no  doubt  contributed  to  accelerate  the 
movement.  The  dualism  in  the  angel  world  becomes  complete.  The 
heavenly  hosts  are  divided  into  two  groups:  the  evil  and  the  good. 
They  are  arranged  in  ranks  and  are  organized  for  service.  They  have 
charge  of  individuals  and  the  oversight  of  nations,  and  there  are  even 
those  which  control  some  of  the  functions  of  nature.  Like  human  beings 
they  have  names,  most  of  which  are  Hebrew.  Thus  from  the  side  of 
angelology  the  idea  of  intermediaries  is  well  developed. 

A  more  abstract  turn  was  given  by  Greek  philosophy.  The  Logos 
speculation  won  its  way  into  the  minds  of  at  least  a  few  of  the  Jewish 
thinkers.  It  seems  probable  that  before  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon  this  influence  was  felt.  Should  Wisdom  in  Prov.,  chap.  8,  be 
nothing  more  than  a  vivid  personification,  yet  a  strong  reflection  of 
Greek  thought  has  colored  the  description  and  the  ideal.  It  is  admitted 
that  the  early  Semitic  thought  did  not  lack  the  element  of  hypostatiza- 
tion.  In  Sippar,  Justice  and  Integrity  were  called  the  children  of 
Shamash  (Schrader,  K.A.T.  3,  368  f.).  Likewise  Persia  had  its  hypos- 
tatization,  and  expressly  called  it  Wisdom  (Tiele,  Gesch.  d.  Relig.  im 
Alterth.,  11,  i,  147-50).  In  many  respects  it  seems  that  the  Persian 
idea  resembled  that  of  the  Hebrews.  While  the  genetic  relation  of  the 
Babylonian  and  Persian  thought  to  that  of  the  Greeks,  and  in  turn  to 
that  of  the  Hebrews,  is  a  subject  of  considerable  dispute,  the  fact  remains 
however  that  it  was  not  until  the  Jews  came  into  the  closest  contact 
with  the  Greeks  that  this  speculation  became  a  part  of  their  thinking. 
Thus  we  find  the  practical  aims  of  the  Hebrews  clothing  themselves  in 
the  mold  of  Greek  culture  (Prov.  8: 14-21).  Greek  speculation  at  least 
assisted  to  push  Wisdom  back  into  that  realm  of  time  before  the  world 
was  (Prov.  8: 22-29).  Should  the  accimiulatioi^  of  epithets  and  charac- 
terizations, and  the  uncertain  translation  "nurseling"  (ITOS,  Prov. 
8:29)  not  be  sufficient  to  prove  hypostatization,  they  certainly  show 
Greek  influence,  direct  or  indirect,  ind  very  adequately  prepare  the  way 
'  for  later  development. 

Our  conclusion  in  regard  to  Wisdom  {tn^U)  in  Ecclesiasticus  must 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATtntZ  (c 

be  practically  the  same.  Here  Wisdom  came  from  the  Most  High  as  the 
firstborn  of  the  creatures  (Ecclus.  1:4;  24:1-7),  and  was  the  mold  for 
all  the  works  of  God.  She  was  poured  out  upon  all  nations,  but  took  up 
her  special  abode  with  Israel  (24:8-10).  At  times  she  seems  to  faU  little 
short  of  an  intermediary  between  God  and  man,  and  often  appears  to 
parallel  the  function  of  the  Xo'y«  of  the  Greeks.  This  thought  is, 
however,  not  consistent  throughout,  and  we  are  compelled  to  stop  short 
of  certainty  as  to  her  hypostasis  (cf.  Bousset,  Relig.  d.  Jud.,  139).  The 
conception  in  the  Book  of  Baruch  is  so  apparently  influenced  by  Ecclesias- 
ticus, without  presenting  any  further  development,  that  we  need  pay  no 
attention  to  it  (Bar.  3:9-13,  27-32). 

Until  the  time  of  Philo,  the  chief  exponent  of  Grecian  thought  in 
respect  to  Wisdom  is  the  author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.    To  him 
Wisdom  b  a  master-workman  (Ttxyi-nfi):  "For  wisdom  which  is  the 
worker  of  al!  things  taught  me  (7  yap  toktwk  Texvmj?  JScSoft  lU  mxJMi, 
Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:22).    Again  he  questions,  "What  is  richer  than  wisdom 
that  worketh  all  things?"  (r^s  to  rarra  ipyaio/iinp,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:5; 
cf.  18:6).    The  thirteenth  chapter  opens  with  an  utterance  which  is 
not  easy  to  interpret.    The  important  part  of  the  sUtement  is  "Neither 
by  considering  the  works  did  they  acknowledge  the  master-workman" 
(tok  t«xi'i'ti7i').    The  dilemma  is  as  to  whether  it  is  God  or  Wisdom  who 
b  referred  to  here.    Our  conclusion  is,  however,  supported  by  either 
interpretation.    Should  Tcxylrrri,  which  has  previously  been  applied  to 
Wisdom,  here  be  applied   to   Deity,   then   we   must   recognize   God 
as    the    efficient    cause    (so    Wisd.    of   Sol.    1:14;  6:7;  9:1,  9)   and 
Wisdom   as   the  actual  agent  in   the  worid-creation.    On  the  other 
hand,  if  we  interpret  this  as  Wisdom,  we  then  have  another  case  in  which 
she  is  set  over  against  God.    To  her  is  attributed  the  power  to  do  all 
things  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:22-30;   8:1,  5).    She  has  been  with  God  in  aU 
his  work,  operating  as  his  instrument  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:9;   11:24).    The 
same  idea  is  again  expressed  in  Slavonic  Enoch  (Slav.  En.  30:8,  12; 
33-3>  4;  48:4).  and  is  essential  to  Philo's  system.    She  is  represented  as 
penetraUng  all  things  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:24;    8:1,  7;    7:27).    In  this  ' 
respect  she  seems  to  be  synonymous  with  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  (nvv/ia 
mpiov)  which  filleth   the  world    (Wisd.  of  Sol.   1:7;    cf.    1:6;    8:1). 
Here  Greek  phraseology  has  been  adopted  as  well  as  Greek  thought. 
Similar  expressions  and  thought  occur  in  Plato  {Gorg.  508A;  Iren.,  V, 
23),  Aristotle  (De  Mundo,  6),  Xen.  (Anab.  vii.  2,  8),  and  later  very  fre- 
quently in  Philo  (cf.  Wace.  Apoc,  I,  427).    By  many  other  charac-  ' 
terizations  she  seems  to  be  the  chief  ministrant,  or  even  the  Spirit  of 


M 


THE  JEWISH  APOIOCETIC  TO  THE  GREOAM  WORLD 


God.  With  him  she  is  living  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:3).  She  knows  the 
mysteries  of  God  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8:4;  9:9,  11).  She  is  his  firstborn 
(luyroyty^,  Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:23;  cf.  7:27).  She  is  the  breath  (*T/ut), 
a  pure  influence  (diro^^oio)  flowing  from  his  glory  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:25), 
and  she  is  the  everlasting  light  and  the  mirror  of  the  power  of  God  (Wisd. 
of  Sol.  7:26).  Further,  in  this  remarkable  chapter  (Wisd.  of  Sol. 
7:22-30)  we  meet  twenty-one  characterizations  of  Wisdom,  some  of 
rather  vague  significance,  many  of  them  coming  from  the  realm  of  Greek 
qieculation,  and  the  combination  bringing  vividly  to  memory  the 
twenty-six  epithets  by  which  the  Stoic  Kleanthes  described  "the  Good" 
(Euseb.,  Praep.  aang.,  XIII,  3;  cf.  Grimm,  Comm.,  158,  and  Deane, 
Book  of  Wisd.,  10). 

While  Wisdom  is  seated  on  the  throne  at  the  side  of  God,  and  is  his 
master-workman  accomplishing  his  will,  she  has  also  a  special  function 
with  men.  She  is  universally  accessible  to  all  who  love  and  seek  her 
(Wisd.  of  Sol.  6:12-15).  She  has  saved  or  will  save  the  world  (Wisd.  of 
Sol.  6:21;  10:1-20;  9:18).  It  is  through  her  that  there  may  come  all 
desirable  gifts.  She  gives  mirth  and  joy;  immortality  and  riches  and 
prudence  come  from  her  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  8: 16-21).  Fame  and  authority 
and  an  everlasting  name  are  likewise  bestowals  from  her  hands  (Wisd. 
of  Sol.  8:10-15).  So  from  the  cumulative  evidence  we  are  forced  to 
conclude  that  in  one  strand  of  this  book,  Wisdom  is  considered  an  essence 
separate  from  God,  which  functions  as  an  intermediary  between  God  and 
man.  We  might  even  go  farther,  and,  because  of  the  predicates  which 
are  used  of  the  Xo'ycn  of  God,  viz.,  creation  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:1),  and  the 
agent  of  the  plague  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  18:15;  cf.  10:15),  we  might  be  justified 
in  finding  in  tro^ita  a  Hebraic  equation  for  the  Grecian  Xayot.  To  the 
Greek  thinkers  who  read  the  book,  this  would  be  the  most  natural 
interpretation. 

Under  the  God  idea,  that  which  last  claims  our  attention  is  the  con- 
ception of  revelation.  The  Hebrew  conception  had  not  been  uniform 
throughout.  The  early  prophets  had  an  overwhelming  conviction  that 
they  were  the  recipients  of  a  direct  communication  from  God.  The 
psychological  processes  are  not  explained,  but  they  permit  of  no  inter- 
pretation which  suggests  any  inter\-ention  between  these  men  and  Deity. 
Later  prophets,  owing  to  changing  conceptions  as  well  perhaps  as  more 
moderate  convictions,  were  guided  in  the  pathways  of  truth  by  angels 
or  messengers  of  God  (Ezekiel,  Zechariah).  Still  later  writers  busied 
themselves  chiefly  with  the  interpretation  of  the  past  in  terms  of  the 
present  (Chronicles,  Priest  Code).    From  the  beginning  of  the  second 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATT7RE 


67 


century  B.C.,  owing  to  the  accumulated  sorrows  which  were  moving  to 
their  climax  under  Greek  rule,  there  is  found  an  abundance  of  apocalyptic  . 
literature.    Inspired  by  messages  of  the  past,  in  form  and  color  a  com- 
bination of  Hebrew  and  Persian,  this  literature  seems  hardly  conscious 
of  the  Greek  culture  by  which  it  was  surrounded. 

The  Greeks  themselves  were  not  without  a  conception  of  revelation. 
While  essentially  quite  different,  perhaps  that  which  came  nearest  to  the 
high-water  mark  of  the  Hebrew  people  finds  its  best  illustration  in 
Socrates,  who  was  conscious  of  the  constant  presence  of  an  inner  guiding 
spirit.  In  general  the  two  peoples  followed  quite  different  lines.  A 
distinct  cleavage  is  again  noted  in  Greek  thought  itself;  while  the  terms 
should  not  be  applied  too  rigidly,  popular  and  philosophic  may  be  used 
to  designate  these  two  different  dispositions.  The  popular  idea  found 
its  answer  in  oradc-giving  and  soothsaying.  This  is  a  conception  which 
obtains  among  all  primitive  people,  the  Hebrews  included.  In  Israel, 
however,  the  ban  had  been  put  on  it  by  the  ethical  ministry  of  the 
Prophets,  and  it  had  fallen  into  disrepute  among  the  religious  leaders. 
Now  under  Greek  influence  it  is  rehabilitated.  Not  only  is  it  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Sibyl  that  oracles  favorable  to  the  Jew  and  his  religion  are 
sought,  but  fictitious  oracle-giving  becomes  a  systematic  pr.ictice,  which 
gains  the  favor  of  some  of  the  best  and  most  religious  leaders  of  the 
nation.  The  author  of  Daniel  was  a  man  of  lofty  aspirations  and  ster- 
ling convictions.  The  writer  of  the  book  of  the  celestial  physics  (En., 
chaps.  72-82)  was  no  mean  speculator  in  his  time.  There  were  perhaps 
few  men  of  keener  moral  sensibilities  than  the  one  who  put  the  oracles 
of  the  future  in  the  mouths  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs.  When  it  is  noted 
that  perhaps  half  of  the  literature  of  this  period  has  assumed  this  oracular 
guise  we  can  appreciate  the  strength  of  that  influence  which  assisted  in 
its  re-emergence. 

The  other  line  of  Greek  influence,  namely,  the  contribution  of  the 
schools,  was  much  more  subtle  and  far-reaching.  Greek  philosophy, 
with  its  many  inner  antagonisms  was  at  least  agreed  in  this,  that  all 
knowledge  must  be  attained  rationally  through  some  inner  relation  to 
the  system  of  the  universe  itself.  For  "  revelation  "  as  such  they  had  no- 
place in  their  pre-Alexandrian  systems."  With  Plato  and  his  followers 
the  measure  of  harmony  with  the  archetypal  idea  of  the  good  was  the 
measure  of  the  rational  development  of  the  man.  The  "world-soul"  , 
was  to  them  the  determining  principle  of  all  knowledge.    The  Stoics 

■  As  the  movements  of  the  Sophbts  and  the  Skeptics  had  no  influence  on  our 
literature,  they  need  not  here  engage  our  attention. 


68 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  CBEOAN  WOKLD 


held  that  just  in  proportion  as  the  Xoyoc  in  the  individual  attained  a 
correspondence  to  the  universal  reason  or  conimon  ideas  (koiku  lyyouu) 
it  attained  to  the  truth.  To  them  law  (.vo/uk)  and  nature  (^«n«) 
were  essentially  synonymous  terms.  While  it  is  true  that  there  were 
movements  in  Hellenistic  thought  which  later  expressed  their  logical 
conclusion  in  such  a  phrase  as  "  divine  revelation  is  the  highest  source  of 
knowledge,"  in  the  period  of  our  study,  reason,  law,  and  nature  were 
the  categories  of  the  highest  authority. 

The  dissimilarity  of  this  with  the  Hebrew  conception  is  at  once 
apparent.  Pressed  on  every  side  by  this  foreign  teaching  which 
threatened  to  subvert  the  very  foundations  of  their  rehgion,  the  Jews 
met  the  need  of  the  situation  by  two  different  methods  of  approach. 
The  first,  which  was  the  full  accrediting  of  the  media  of  revelation,  is 
purely  objective,  and  is  certainly  Jewish  rather  than  Greek.  It  is  the 
dogmatic  strengthening  of  their  old  position,  to  which  they  were  forced 
by  the  speculations  of  their  opponents.  The  second  is  the  accrediting 
of  the  revelation  through  an  appeal  to  its  content,  and  is  Grecian  rather 
than  Jewish. 

The  Jew  not  only  assumed  but  asserted  that  there  was  a  need  of  a 
divine  revelation.  That  there  are  mysteries  which  the  human  mind 
cannot  fathom  is  asserted  in  the  Old  Testament:  "Man  cannot  find  out 
the  work  that  God  hath  done  from  the  beginning  even  to  the  end" 
(Eccles.  3 : 1 1 ;  cf.  7:24).  The  mysteries  of  the  unknown  and  the  desire 
to  gain  some  glimpses  into  it  are  constantly  reiterated  in  the  apocryphal 
writers  (cf.  especially  IV  Esdr.,  chaps.  3-5,  19;  Ecclus.  16:17-23; 
18:4-7;  24:28;  42:17-25;  39:16-21).  In  the  past  such  revelation 
had  come  through  certain  outstanding  individuals  in  their  national 
history.  The  use  of  these  time-honored  names  as  pseudonyms  is  one 
of  the  conspicuous  attempts  to  defend  revelation  from  the  standpoint 
of  external  authority.  The  plethora  of  pseudepigraphy  of  this  period 
cannot  be  recognized  as  merely  the  elaboration  and  development  of 
the  ideas  and  systems  of  the  men  whose  names  they  now  bear.  It 
is  true  the  names  were  usually  chosen  because  of  some  special  fitness 
between  the  name  and  the  content  of  the  writing.  But  yet  we  must 
admit  that  these  books  were  "tracts  for  the  times,"  to  which  were  ' 
attached  names,  reverenced  in  Israel  and  not  unknown  in  the  pagan 
world,  for  the  express  purpose  of  gaining  a  hearing  for  the  message. 
Enoch,  Noah,  Baruch,  the  Sibyl,  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Daniel,  Solo- 
mon, Ezra,  Moses,  and  Isaiah  were  noms  de  plumes  with  which  the 
literati  of  Judaism  conjured  in  these  dark  days.    Many  of  these  were 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LITERATUSE 


69 


great  religious  teachers  far  from  strange  to  the  ears  of  the  cultured 
Greek  community. 

In  the  closing  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  one  name,  and  that 
because  of  personal  worth,  had  in  respect  to  things  of  the  law  gained  a 
pre-eminence,  viz.,  Moses.  The  strength  of  this  tradition  is  indicated 
in  the  latest  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (Ezra.  6: 18,  et  al.;  cf. 
Mai.  4:4).  That  tradition  is  now  assumed  by  the  Jewish  defenders  of 
the  faith,  and  the  need  of  a  revelation  and  the  peculiar  fitness  of  this 
name  to  be  the  bearer  of  that  revelation  are  duly  emphasized.  Law,  and 
this  we  shall  take  up  later,  is  identified  with  that  desired  knowledge. 
Moses,  thus,  as  the  original  giver  of  that  law,  became  a  sine  qua  turn  of 
Jewish  literary  thought.  To  prove  his  unique  fitness  to  be  the  channel 
of  such  a  revelation  is  a  task  which  was  attempted  by  many  minds.  Ben 
Sirach,  if  we  can  trust  the  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  text,  compared  him 
with  the  angels  (DTlbiO ,  Eccles.  45 : 2 ;  d .  Wisd.  of  Sol.  10: 16).  Ezekiel 
the  dramatist  and  Eupolemus  sought  to  prove  him  the  instructor  of 
his  people  in  the  arts  and  sciences  (Euseb.,  Praep.  evang.,  IX,  28,  26). 
Artapanus  identified  him  with  Musaeus,  the  great  teacher  of  Orphaeus. 
Josephus  calls  him  the  one  "next  to  God"  (Jos.,  Jew.  Wars,  II,  8,  9;  cf. 
Jos.,  A  nt.,  Ill,  XV,  3).  Philo  held  him  to  be  the  Master  of  all  philosophies, 
and  sought  to  deduce  from  the  Pentateuch  a  detailed  Grecian  philosophy 
{De  Vita  Mas.,  i,  6).  Many  are  the  Haggadoth  which  describe  in  vary- 
ing detail  the  ascent  of  Moses  into  the  heaven  and  how  he  received  the 
Torah  from  God  {Yoma).  One  of  the  evidences  for  his  claim  as  revealer, 
which  is  Grecian— f)erhaps  influenced  from  the  farther  East — rather  than 
Hebrew,  is  that  of  his  pre-existence.  The  passage  which  thus  fully 
accredits  him  to  this  high  office  is  found  in  the  Assumption  of  Moses: 
"But  he  was  not  pleased  to  manifest  this  purpose  of  creation  from  the 
creation  of  the  world,  in  order  that  the  Gentiles  might  thereby  be  con- 
victed, yea  to  their  own  humiliation  might  by  their  arguments  convict 
one  another.  Accordingly  he  designed  and  devised  me,  and  he  prepared 
me  from  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  I  should  be  the  mediator 
of  his  covenant.  And  now  I  declare  unto  thee  ....  and  receive  thou 
this  writing  that  thou  mayest  know  how  to  preserve  the  books  which  I 
shall  deUver  unto  thee"  (Assump.  Mos.  1:13-16;  cf.  10:11;  ii:i). 

The  effort  to  assure  the  credibihty  of  the  medium  of  revelation  is 
supplemented  from  two  different  quarters.  The  Book  of  Jubilees  traces 
the  course  of  divine  revelation  from  the  time  of  Moses  back  to  the  very 
beginning  and  asserts  that  the  law  is  a  copy  of  that  which  is  written  on 
the  heavenly  tablets.    Traditions  of  the  divine  laws  were  handed  down 


7° 


TBE  JEWISH  AFOLOGEnC  TO  THE  GKEOAN  WORLD 


through  Adam,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  who  was  given  the  gift  of 
understanding  the  Hebrew  speech  in  order  "that  he  might  hear  and 
speak  with  the  language  which  had  been  revealed"  (Jub.  13:35),  ^^^ 
his  descendants,  and  then  later,  for  the  sake  of  the  greater  accuracy, 
written  in  heaven  by  the  "angel  of  the  presence"  and  given  to  Moses 
(Jub.  1:4-6,  27-28;  3:10,14,31;  7:20,38,39;  8:11;  23:32;  etal.;  d. 
Sibyl.  Or.,  Ill,  256,  580,  600). 

Another  source  of  danger  to  the  supernatural  message,  namely,  the 
errors  arising  through  the  transmission  of  the  manuscript,  is  safeguarded 
by  another  well-known  theory.  Ezra  in  a  psychological  state,  induced 
by  a  prepared  drink,  dictates  to  five  scribes  for  a  period  of  forty  days 
and  thus  under  the  mechanical  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  twenty- 
four  books  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  as  well  as  seventy  others,  were 
prepared  (IV  Ezra  14:37-48).  The  observance  of  the  law  which  was 
thus  intrusted  to  the  keeping  of  the  chosen  people  has  been,  on  the  one 
hand,  supematurally  enforced  (II  Mace.  3:24-27;  Twelve  Patr.  T. 
Reub.  1:7,  8;  T.  Sim.  2:12;  T.  Jud.  10:2-5;  "^5;  T.  Gad  5:9;  T. 
Benj.  2:4),  and,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been  supematurally  guarded  by 
Providence — the  rpoma  of  the  Stoics  (III  Mace.  2:21;  4:2;  5:26-28; 
6:18-21). 

There  are,  however,  traces  of  movements  along  other  directions 
which  were  much  more  thoroughly  Grecian.  Under  terminology  such 
as  "Son  of  man,"  "angel,"  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Wisdom  (o-o^)  we 
find  the  quasi-philosophical  Hebraic  equation  for  the  vah  or  the  Aoyoi 
of  the  Greeks.  Through  these  manifestations  or  existences  the  Hebrews 
endeavor  to  rationalize  their  revelation  idea.  A  few  quotations  will 
suffice  to  illustrate  this  fact.  This  conception  is  put  very  clearly  in 
Enoch,  "This  is  the  Son  of  man  who  hath  righteousness,  with  whom 
dwelleth  righteousness,  and  who  reveals  all  the  treasures  of  that  which 
is  hidden,  because  the  Lord  of  Spirits  hath  chosen  him,  and  his  lot  before 
the  Lord  of  Spirits  hath  surpassed  everything  in  uprightness  forever" 
(En.  46 : 3).  Similar  in  import  is  another  characterization  from  the  same 
author:  "And  in  him  dwells  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  the  spirit  of  Him 
who  gives  knowledge"  (En.  49:3).  The  function  of  the  angels  in  regard 
to  revelation  need  here  only  be  referred  to.  They  were  the  official  guides 
of  the  apocalyptists  from  the  time  of  Zechariah  on.  One  of  them, 
Ramiel,  is  represented  as  the  one  who  presides  over  true  visions  (Apoc. 
Bar.  55:3;  63:6).  The  place  of  <To<^ia,  however,  b  in  this  respect 
especially  important.  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  she  it  was  who, 
because  of  her  understanding  spirit,  taught  the  author  all  things  either 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LITERATURE 


n 


secret  or  manifest  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:21,  22).  It  is  through  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  entering  holy  souls  that  they  become  friends  of  God  and  proph- 
ets (Wisd.  of  Sol.  7:27).  The  counsel  of  God  cannot  be  known  save 
through  wisdom  and  the  Holy  Spirit  from  above  (Wisd.  of  Sol.  9:17). 
In  the  Epistle  of  Banich  ao^ia  is  immanent  in  the  book  of  the  command- 
ments of  God  (Bar.  3:9;  4:4). 

Contributing  to  the  same  line  of  thought  is  the  idea  which  became  a 
dogma  of  Judaism.  Twice  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  we  are  told  of 
the  voice  coming  from  heaven  bearing  a  revelation.  The  first  time  it 
reads:  "A  voice  came  from  the  height  and  said  unto  me  ...  .  hear  the 
word  of  the  mighty  God"  (Apoc.  Bar.  13:1,  2).  More  vivid  is  the 
second  declaration :  "  The  heavens  were  opened  ....  and  a  voice  was 
heard  from  high  and  said  unto  me"  (Apoc.  Bar.  22:1;  d.  Matt.  3:17; 
Rev.  4:1).  Thus  in  a  variety  of  ways  did  the  Jews  endeavor  to 
strengthen  the  external  claims  to  revelation. 

The  second  method  of  readjustment  to  the  Greek  thought,  in  the 
matter  of  revelation,  was  the  appeal  to  content.  This  was  rational  and 
Hellenistic.  With  commendable  unanimity  they  assume  or  seek  to 
prove  that  the  Jewish  law  meets  all  possible  requirements.  To  Ben 
Sirach  the  pathway  to  true  wisdom  lay  through  the  law:  "If  thou  desire 
wisdom,  keep  the  commandments"  (Ecclus.  1:26).  "Let  thy  mind 
dwell  upon  the  ordinances  of  the  Lord,  and  meditate  continually  in  his 
commandments;  ....  and  thy  desire  of  wisdom  shall  be  given  unto 
thee"  (Ecclus.  6:37).  Human  wisdom  and  the  law  are  to  this  author 
practically  synonymous  terms:  "All  wisdom  is  the  fear  of  the  Lord; 
and  in  all  wisdom  is  the  doing  of  the  Law"  (Ecclus.  19:20).  "Not  so 
he  that  hath  applied  his  soul,  and  meditateth  in  the  law  of  the  Most 
High;  he  will  seek  out  the  wisdom  of  the  ancients"  (Ecclus.  39:1). 
The  fruit  of  wisdom  is  found  in  the  law:  "All  these  things  [enumerated 
in  Ecclus.  24: 1-22]  are  the  book  of  the  covenant  of  the  Most  High  God, 
even  the  law  which  Moses  commanded  us  for  a  heritage  "  (Ecclus.  24 :  23). 
Thus  we  see  that  a  book  touched  most  deeply  by  the  Grecian  culture- 
movement  is  thoroughly  saturated  with  a  respect  and  love  for  the  law. 
In  the  addition  to  Esther,  the  Jews  are  spoken  of  as  "no  evil-doers,  but 
live  by  most  just  laws"  (Esth.  16: 15),  and  in  HI  Maccabees  the  law  of 
the  Jews,  when  consistently  followed  out,  makes  good  and  faithful 
citizens:  "But  the  Jews  maintained  toward  their  Kings  good  will  and 
unswerving  loyalty;  yet  as  they  worshipped  God  and  governed  them- 
selves according  to  his  law  ....  they  appeared  odious  to  some  persons. 
But  since  they  adorned  their  intercourse  with  one  another  with  the  good 


7» 


THE  JEWISH  APOLOGETIC  TO  THE  GRECIAN  WORLD 


works  of  the  righteous,  they  had  established  themselves  in  the  good 
opinion  of  all  men"  (III  Mace.  3:4-6;  cf.  1:9;  7:10-12).  In  IV 
Maccabees  the  Jewish  law  is  asserted  to  be  right  reason  (Xoyuriim). 
Through  the  divine  law  alone  can  the  persecuted  people  retain  right 
reason  unsubdued  (IV  Mace.  11:23).  When  a  man  is  obedient  to  the 
law  through  right  reason  he  becomes  a  careful  husbandman,  a  controller 
of  his  passions,  a  dutiful  son,  an  affectionate  husband,  a  wise  parent,  a 
good  master,  and  one  whose  whole  course  is  dominated  by  virtue  (IV 
Mace.  2:9-23;  cf.  5: 15-18).  Further,  this  law  which  is  divine  is  found 
only  in  the  writings  of  Moses  (IV  Mace.  9:2;  5:34;  2:9;  11:5).  Wis- 
dom is  immanent  in  Jewish  law  according  to  Baruch  (Bar.  3:9-14; 
4:1),  as  also  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (Apoc.  Bar.  51:3,  7;  61:4; 
59: 7).  The  synonymous  parallelism  found  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch 
will  suffice  to  illustrate  the  statement:  "Also  as  for  the  glory  of  those 
who  have  now  been  justified  in  my  law,  who  have  had  understanding  in 
their  Ufe,  and  who  have  planted  in  their  hearts  the  roots  of  wisdom" 
(Apoc.  Bar.  51:3,  4).  There  are  innumerable  passages  from  almost 
every  quarter  which  insist  that  the  law  is  the  only  true  standard  of  life 
(I  Mace.  4:42-52;  Ps.  Sol.  9:7-9;  1:7-9;  2:3;  8:12;  10:5;  14:1-4; 
18:9;  Wisd.  of  Sol.  18:4,  9;  16:6;  Aristeas,  vs.  31;  I  Esdr.  5:47-53; 
8:7-24;  9:39-41,  et  al.),  and  obedience  to  it  is  constantly  representol 
as  essential  for  all  (Twelve  Patr.  T.  Levi  14:4;  I  Mace.  1:34-39;  2:21- 
27,  34;  II  Mace.  4:17;  6:6,  23;  8:26;  12:38,  Bar.  4:13;  IV  Esdr. 
7:37-39)- 

Another  line  of  argument  adopted  in  defense  of  the  law  was  that,  not 
only  as  we  have  seen,  was  it  from  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  but  it  was 
also  valid  for  all  eternity.  This  is  particularly  true  in  Jubilees  (Jub. 
2:18;  3:31;  6:14;  15:25;  33:16),  in  Enoch  (En.  99:2;  103:4),  andin 
the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (Apoc.  Bar.  17:4;  3:6;  59:3-6;  84:2-3). 
Likewise  in  the  Epistle  of  Baruch  it  is  spoken  of  as  enduring  forever 
(Bar.  1:17-20;  2:1,2;  2:20-24). 

In  respect  to  the  doctrines  of  God,  Intermediaries,  and  Revelation 
we  would  thus  conclude  that  while  no  Jew  within  the  scope  of  our  study 
presented  anything  like  a  harmonious  philosophical  system,  yet  among 
them  were  those  who  had  appropriated  many  of  the  Greek  forms  of  speech 
and  categories  of  thought.  A  transcendent  God  was  conceived  of  as 
unknowable  and  immovable.  Intermediaries  to  maintain  the  relation 
between  God  and  the  world  were  necessary,  and  what  was  almost  the 
same  as  the  Xoyot  of  the  Greeks  is  found  in  Jewish  thought  under 
varying  names.    An  attempt  is  made  to  bring  their  doctrine  of  revelation 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  UTERATUSE 


73 


into  harmony  with  surrounding  thought.  Some  develop  the  popular 
and  primitive  side  of  religion  in  the  idea  of  oracle-giving.  Others 
approach  more  or  less  closely  to  the  thought  that  the  criteria  of  truth 
are  found  in  the  universal  reason.  They  thus  seek  to  prove  the  universal 
validity  of  the  law  by  its  content,  and  work  out,  in  a  semi-philosophic 
way,  though  quite  imperfectly,  the  media  through  which  that  revelation 
could  consistently  come.  These  not  altogether  successful  attempts  of 
the  Hebraist  to  converse  in  the  philosophic  formulae  of  the  Hellenist 
point  to  the  way  in  which  the  great  Alexandrian  Jew  of  the  first  centuiy 
of  the  Christian  era  thought  and  taught. 


r^^fS^ 


LOAN  DEPT.  '^^ 

«H.WAtS  OH^-«;; --r;i  MOW.  or 


^^^035^: 


•-^^T^P^ 


^>  o-^^o^ 


I'^^rrr-fd^ 


^fer*;-T-'f:*r 


B«''« 


^^<'Ci6 


^miy?: 


?^;7?^ 


mi^: 


